Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (General Powers) Bill,

Sunderland Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered:—

Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords],

Ordered, That Standing Orders 92, 231, 232, and 258 be suspended, and that the Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords], as amended, be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly:—

Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ayr County Council (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Leith Harbour and Docks Consolidation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

AYR BURGH EXTENSION, &C., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The Amendments which stand on the Order Paper are in every case the result of agreement with the promoters of the Bill.

PREAMBLE.

Amendments made:

In page 1, line 1, leave out the first "the," and insert "a."

Leave out "set forth in the Schedule hereunto annexed," and insert "relating to the extension of Ayr Burgh and other matters."

In line 7, leave out "requisite," and insert "expedient."

After "should," insert "subject to amendment."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Order in schedule.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 14, leave out "contained," and insert "so made which as amended is set forth."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

SCHEDULE.

Amendments made:

Insert new Clause 20 (As to contribution by burgh to county council.)
Whereas the requisition for the sum apportioned and allocated by the county council to the burgh pursuant to section twenty-one of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, for the year commencing on the sixteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, was in terms of that section sent to the Corporation by the county council before the date of the passing of the Act confirming this Order. It is hereby enacted that the county council may and shall, not later than the first day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, cause to be sent to the Corporation a substituted requisition for the sum which would have been so apportioned and allocated if the added area had at the date of such apportionment and allocation formed part of the burgh, and such substituted requisition shall for all purposes have effect as if it had been sent by the county council to the Corporation as a requisition pursuant to the said section twenty-one on or before the fifteenth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five.

In Clause 99, page 47, line 36, after "regulating," insert "or."

Line 36, leave out "or preventing."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

KILMARNOCK BURGH EXTENSION, &C., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

PREAMBLE.

Amendments made: In page 1, line 5, leave out the first "the," and insert "a."

Lines 5 and 6, leave out "set forth in the Schedule hereunto annexed," and insert "relating to the extension of Kilmarnock Burgh and other matters."

Line 11, leave out "requisite," and insert "expedient."

After "should," insert "subject to amendment."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Order in Schedule.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 18, leave out "contained," and insert "so made which as amended is set forth.")—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

SCHEDULE.

Amendments made:

Insert new Clause 19 (As to contribution by burgh to county council.)
Whereas the requisition for the sum apportioned and allocated by the county council to the burgh pursuant to section twenty-one of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, for the year commencing on the sixteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, was in terms of that section sent to the Corporation by the county council before the date of the passing of the Act confirming this Order. It is hereby enacted that the county council may and shall, not later than the first day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, cause to be sent to the Corporation a substituted requisition for the sum which would have been so apportioned and allocated if the added areas had at the date of such apportionment and allocation formed part of the burgh and such substituted requisition shall for all purposes have effect as if it had been sent by the county council to the Corporation as a requisition pursuant to the said section twenty-one or before the fifteenth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five.

In Clause 178, page 86, line 6, after "regulating," insert "or."

Leave out "or preventing."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

TROON BURGH EXTENSION, &C., ORDER CONEIRMATION BILL.

PREAMBLE.

Amendments made: In page 1, line 1, leave out the first "the," and insert "a."

Lines 1 and 2, leave out "set forth in the Schedule hereunto annexed," and insert "relating to the extension of Troon Burgh and other matters."

Line 7, leave out "requisite," and insert "expedient."

After "should," insert "subject to amendment."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of Order in Schedule.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 14, leave out "contained," and insert "so made which as amended is set forth."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

SCHEDULE.

Amendments made:

Insert new Clause 26 (As to contribution by burgh to county council).
Whereas the requisition for the sum apportioned and allocated by the county council to the burgh pursuant to Section twenty-one of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, for the year commencing on the sixteenth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, was in terms of that Section sent to the town council by the county council before the date of the passing of the Act confirming this Order. It is hereby enacted that the county council may and shall, not later than the fisrt day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, cause to be sent to the town council a substituted requisition for the sum which would have been so apportioned and allocated if the added area had at the date of such apportionment and allocation formed part of the burgh and such substituted requisition shall for all purposes have effect as if it had been sent by the county council to the town council as a requisition pursuant to the said Section twenty-one on or before the fifteenth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five.

In Clause 107, page 50, line 23, after "regulating," insert "or."

Leave out "or preventing."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SINO-BRITISH COMMISSION.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether field-service concessions will be admissible to troops forming the escort of the Sino-British Commission which is going out in the autumn to demarcate the Burma-Yunnan boundary under the presidency of a Swiss colonel appointed by the League of Nations; what will be the nature of these concessions; and whether arrangements have been made for the supply of canteen stores to the troops?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Government of India have been asked to furnish the information desired by my hon. Friend, and on its receipt I will communicate with him further.

TRADE UNIONISTS (ARRESTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many trade unionists have been apprehended under the various ordinances in India and against whom no charge has been preferred; and what is the average time of their detention?

Mr. BUTLER: I presume the hon. Member is referring to arrests made under provisions of the emergency powers legislation which is in force in certain Provinces. There are no ordinances now in force in India giving these powers. I have no information as to the number of trade unionists arrested under these provisions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that information shows that trade unionists and Socialists are characterised by the authorities as Communists and are frequently apprehended without any charge being preferred against them, and will he make special inquiries to see how many cases have been apprehended?

Mr. BUTLER: There is no intention of making discrimination against trade unionists as such. If the hon. Member desires it, I will certainly make inquiries.

DISTURBANCES, LAHORE.

Brigadier General CLIFTON BROWN: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Sikh-Muslim trouble at Lahore has now subsided; and whether British and Gurkha troops have yet returned to their ordinary stations?

Mr. BUTLER: The situation in Lahore is now quiet, and it is understood that the Muslim community have decided to follow constitutional methods of pursuing their case. I have no information as to the second part of the question.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the seriousness and the frequency of these communal troubles, does not my hon. Friend think it will be necessary in future rather to increase the British Army and Gurkha troops in India than to allow anything in the way of Indianisation to go on?

Mr. BUTLER: I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the authorities in India are satisfied with the troops which they have at their disposal, and that Indian troops have been actively employed on picket and patrol duties, and that on 20th July Indian cavalry made several charges against crowds.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BILLS AND TREASURY NOTES (BRITISH HOLDERS).

Mr. LYONS: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take as a result of the recent representations made to him by the committee acting on behalf of British holders of Chinese Government bonds?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Chinese Government ten-year bills of 1918 and ten-year Treasury notes of 1919, in regard to which I have had representations recently. The case of the British holders of these bills and notes, together with that of other issues, has been repeatedly represented to the Chinese Government and will continue to be represented at every favourable opportunity. Beyond that there appear to be no special steps that can be taken.

Mr. LYONS: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has said, may I ask whether a time limit can be imposed in asking for the information?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think I can acid anything to what I have said about taking any favourable opportunities arising for pressing these claims.

STERLING LOANS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can furnish an estimate of the loss of Income Tax and Super-tax owing to the failure of the Chinese Government to meet its obligations in respect of certain sterling loans?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I regret that I am unable to furnish any estimate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSYRIANS (SETTLEMENT).

Captain CAZALET: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further communication from either the French or Iraq Governments in regard to the transport and settlement of the Assyrians to Syria; and whether the British Government has yet come to any decision as to the amount of money which it is prepared to provide towards the cost of this scheme?

Sir S. HOARE: I understand that the French Government have accepted the proposal of the Assyrian Committee of the League Council that technical discussions with a view to the elaboration of a detailed plan of settlement in the Gharb area should now take place locally, and that these discussions will start in Beirut at the beginning of August. As regards the second part of the question, the general appeal for funds addressed to all States Members of the League, and the special letter on the subject from the President of the Assyrian Committee of the Council to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are receiving urgent consideration, but I am not yet in a position to indicate what decision His Majesty's Government are likely to take in regard to them.

Captain CAZALET: In view of the very special responsibility which this country has, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that His Majesty's
Government will not allow a solution of this problem to be indefinitely delayed owing to lack of funds?

Sir S. HOARE: We do not at all wish to see a solution of this problem indefinitely delayed; we wish to see a settlement as quickly as possible. There are, however obligations other than the obligations of the British Government. But I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we do regard it as an urgent matter and that we should very much like to see it settled.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do we understand that the British Government will participate in local discussions with the French and Iraq Governments?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, I am almost sure that that is the case, but I will verify it.

Captain HEILGERS: Would it not be a good thing to settle these Assyrians in Transjordania where they would be a barrier against Wahabi penetration?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. MABANE: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many soldiers of the Great War are now beginning to suffer from ailments, or are experiencing recurrences or after effects of ailments or wounds sustained in the War, or are dying prematurely, and that in many cases it is not possible to establish an incontrovertible medical history to relate present ailments or premature death to war service; that there is a widespread sentiment throughout the country that the pledge given during the War that no soldier should fail to receive full compensation for any injury he sustained should be most generously interpreted; whether he will, therefore, consider appointing non-medical bodies of ordinary citizens, similarly constituted to common juries, to decide upon cases where there is conflict of medical testimony; and whether he will be prepared to accept the decision of such bodies as final?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member that the late claims now being received, which are diminishing in number, are not deter-
mined on evidence amounting to legal proof or the absence of it, as he would appear to imagine. On the contrary, each case is decided on its merits in the light of all the evidence available, and frequently after consultation with outside specialists of eminence. I am afraid I do not consider the suggestion in the last part of the question either necessary or practicable.

Mr. MABANE: Is my hon. Friend aware that cases frequently come to the attention of almost every hon. Member in which, after considering the evidence, they are compelled to conclude that some compensation ought to be granted, and can he not suggest some means whereby this matter, which is one of great anxiety to all Members, may be overcome?

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid the real trouble is that it is impossible for my Department to disclose to hon. Members all the evidence we have, and I am sure, from such experience as I have had, that if hon. Members could see all the evidence in these cases they would agree with the decisions come to by my Department.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: May I ask what percentage of the claims is granted?

Mr. HUDSON: I think that six out of seven claims submitted have been granted. I suggest that that shows the ex-service men have, on the whole, been fairly, and even generously, treated.

Sir JOHN WALLACE: Is due weight attached to independent medical testimony which may be in conflict with the official testimony; and is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of his reply, very serious cases of grievance are arising all over the country on account of the lack of consideration extended to the cases referred to?

Mr. HUDSON: As the hon. Member knows, there is a procedure in operation by which, where there is any serious difficulty, the case is submitted for the advice of an eminent outside professional expert nominated by the President of the Royal College of Physicians or the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, as the case may be. I think I am correct in saying that in no
case has the advice of that independent expert been disregarded. In every case his advice has been taken by my Department.

Mr. GUY: Will my hon. Friend make more extended use of independent medical experts, because in Scotland only two such cases were submitted last year?

Mr. PETHERICK: Where a case has gone to appeal and the appeal has been turned down, and later there has been an emergence of shrapnel from a man's head, can the case be further considered?

Mr. HUDSON: The Department is always ready to consider any new evidence brought on behalf of a man.

Mr. DICKIE: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread belief that there is little hope of winning a case on appeal if it involves, as it must in many cases, a, reversal of the original medical decision, and is there any sound reason why we should not see the whole of the evidence?

Mr. HUDSON: In a great number of cases I am afraid that the man concerned would certainly object to anyone except the medical adviser seeing the evidence.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: In view of the fact that it is difficult for ex-service men to prove that their disability was caused or aggravated by war service, could not my hon. Friend give the suggestion in this question further consideration?

Mr. CROOKE: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the advisability of recommending such alterations in the King's Royal Warrant that will abolish the seven years' time limit in all cases where the disability of ex-service men who served in the Great War is proved to be due to war service, such as wounds, gas, etc.?

Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir. The course suggested would involve legislation and the Government are satisfied that existing arrangements for the award of compensation due in the comparatively few cases of fresh claims for disablement now arising are preferable both in the interests of ex-service men and of public administration.

Mr. GROVES: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give consideration to the question of an appeal for a
pension for Mrs. Hocking, 19, Great Eastern Road, Stratford, E., whose husband, Harry Hocking, joined the forces in 1914 and served from 1916 to 1918 in Italy, spending some part of his time in the European hospital at Faenza suffering from the effects of gas poisoning and malaria; whether he is aware that this man soon after the termination of the War showed symptoms of mental strain which so developed that he necessarily became an in-patient of Goodmayes Mental Institution; and whether, in these circumstances, he will treat the case as a disability consequent upon war service?

Mr. HUDSON: I am afraid that the facts are not as stated in the second part of the question. There is no record that Mr. Hocking ever suffered from gassing or malaria; indeed, the only recorded treatment during his service in Italy is for influenza of three days' duration. I am advised that the case as presented does not disclose any grounds on which it could be certified that Mr. Hocking's unfortunate condition is the result of his war service.

Mr. GROVES: Surely a wife would know whether her husband was suffering from mental strain; and, if the wife in this case has given such testimony, could not the hon. Gentleman consider it in view of the generous reply that he has given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane)?

Mr. HUDSON: The hon. Member suggested that the man suffered from gassing and malaria, but there is no record of that.

Mr. GROVES: I have the papers, and may I submit them to the hon. Gentleman so that he can see the evidence?

Mr. HUDSON: I shall certainly be glad to see the papers. I venture to suggest that the hon. Member might have seen me first before putting this question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING.

Sir PERCY HURD: 13.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the forthcoming negotiations between the Milk Marketing Board and the milk buyers, he will now state what measures
the Government propose to take to maintain the price payable to dairy farmers for milk used for manufacturing purposes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement of policy with regard to milk products which I made on 25th July in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise), to which I have nothing to add.

Sir P. HURD: In order to safeguard the producers in the forthcoming negotiations, could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the guaranteed price of manufacturing milk will be continued for the whole year of the new contract period?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I cannot make a statement so important as that at the present time. I can only say that there will be negotiations; I cannot go any further.

Sir P. HURD: Can we have a statement before the House rises?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I shall not be able before the House rises to go further than my statement of the 25th.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Sir P. HURD: 14.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the fact that the Netherlands, one of our keenest competitors in egg production, has sent us in the first six months of this year nearly four times as many eggs as in the corresponding periods of 1933 and 1934; in view also of the consequential depression in price in the market for home-produced eggs in recent months; and, in view of the probability that the Great Britain Reorganisation Commission will not report until the autumn, he will state what immediate steps the Government are taking to give the British producer the first place in the home market as promised?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that the increase in imports of eggs in shell from the Netherlands is as stated by my hon. Friend. I would, however, draw his attention to my reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) on 22nd July, a copy of which I am sending to him; and, as regards prices, the re-
cords show that since the early part of this year they have on the average been higher than those ruling during the corresponding periods of last year. Arrangements are being made with the purpose of securing a reduction of approximately 5 per cent. in total imports from foreign sources during the current quarter as compared with the corresponding quarter of 1933. The attention of the Netherlands Government has been drawn to the over-shipments from that country during the first half of the year.

Sir P. HURD: Has it been suggested to the Netherlands that they might prefer a 10 per cent reduction?

Mr. ELLIOT: We have simply drawn their attention to the shipments. The exact measures to deal with the position have not been settled between the two countries.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember in this and in other matters that the poor people are large consumers of these eggs, and that any alteration that will make the price high will very adversely affect them?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that the poor people are consumers of these eggs, and that on account of the better conditions they have secured owing to this Government they are able to purchase them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Marketing Act, 1932, granted him powers to prohibit or restrict imports only when a marketing scheme is in existence or is in course of preparation? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what progress has been made in regard to a marketing scheme?

Mr. ELLIOT: I do not think that that arises here.

Sir P. HURD: 38.
asked the President of the. Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the importation of eggs from the Netherlands in the first six months of this year were 1,770,000 great hundreds, as compared with about 470,000 great hundreds in each of the two preceding years; and whether he has, as promised, considered the necessity of calling on the Netherlands Government to observe our request that their shipments for the whole of this year
should show a 10 per cent. reduction upon the 1934 figure?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that the Netherlands observe the agreement which has been entered into with them with regard to the import of eggs into this country?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I am ware that imports of eggs from the Netherlands in the first six months of this year have shown a large increase over those in the same period of the two preceding years. There is no agreement with the Netherlands Government that they will restrict their exports of eggs to this country, but they and other foreign Governments have been asked to do so. The position has recently been discussed here with representatives of the Netherlands Government, who undertook to go into the question on their return to Holland.

Sir P. HURD: Did not His Majesty's Government make a request that Netherlands shipments should be reduced by 10 per cent., and is that the request which we are now pursuing?

Dr. BURGIN: The Netherlands Government and other Governments have been requested to reduce their export of eggs to this country. I was pointing out to the House that there was no agreement.

Sir P. HURD: I did not say there was.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: If the Netherlands Government do not accede to our request, could we not take steps under the Marketing Act to force them to do so?

Dr. BURGIN: The whole question of what procedure will be adopted in the event of the Netherlands not acceding to our request had better be deferred until their Government have had an opportunity of hearing what their representatives have reported, and of communicating their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not a considerable time—over a year—since they were asked, and instead of reducing their export have they not increased it?

NATIONAL STUD.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider introducing a different system of working the national stud so that inbreeding will be reduced and stallions brought in from outside to improve the quality of the stock?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is the normal practice to mate the stud mares with the best outside stallions. Of the 12 yearlings recently sold at Newmarket there were two each by Blandford, Sansovino and Bosworth, and one each by Fairway and Ut Majeur in addition to four by Diligence. The stud yearlings realised an average of over £1,650 at the recent Newmarket sales, which seems a good evidence of the high quality of the stock.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, to improve the efficiency of the working of the national stud, he will consider introducing some system whereby representative owners generally may be enabled to interest themselves in the leasing of horses for racing purposes instead of first choice being given to one person only as is the case now?

Mr. ELLIOT: I see no sufficient reason to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: In view of the fact that the national stud has involved the loss of so much money, will my right hon. Friend consider opening an inquiry into the matter to see what can be done?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will certainly be glad to keep this matter under review, but, of course, one must be guided by other considerations more than by financial ones in these delicate matters.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: When the right hon. Gentleman is getting out that information, will he see that we have the tips before Goodwood?

WAGES.

Mr. T. SMITH: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many county wage committees reduced the wages of agricultural workers during 1932 and 1935; and how many districts increased wages during 1034?

Mr. ELLIOT: During 1032, of the 47 agricultural wages committees in England
and Wales 19 reduced the minimum rate of wages for adult male workers and five other committees increased the hours of work in respect of which the minimum weekly wage is payable. Since 1st January, 1935, the minimum rates of wages have been reduced by only one committee, and in no part of the country have the hours of work in respect of which the minimum wage is payable been increased. During 1934, 23 committees increased the minimum rates of wages, six committtees reduced the hours of work and in addition three other committees both increased wages and reduced the hours.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: So the National Government are giving better terms to agricultural workers?

MARKETING SCHEMES.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many committees have been set up in connection with the various agricultural marketing schemes during the past four years; what is the total personnel; and how many separate reports have been made to his Department?

Mr. ELLIOT: The number of committees appointed in pursuance of the Agricultural Marketing Act by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself is 18. The total personnel of these committees is 67, and 52 reports have been made to my Department. I am sending to the hon. Member a statement giving these details for each committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how many of the recommendations of the various committees have been approved and put into operation by the Government?

Mr. ELLIOT: Not without notice, I am afraid.

Mr. MABANE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his declaration on 20th July on the subject of marketing, he is prepared to appoint at the earliest possible moment a Royal Commission to investigate and report on the problem of distribution, in order that the full facts may be available when he decides to engage upon the work foreshadowed by him in that declaration?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): My hon. Friend no doubt refers to my remarks on the subject of the marketing of livestock. I would remind him that reports on agricultural marketing issued from time to time by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries deal with this problem, and I am assured that the organisations of producers who are concerned with the promotion of marketing schemes appreciate the importance of consultation with the interests engaged in distributive services. I am not prepared to adopt his suggestion for the appointment of a Royal Commission.

Mr. MABANE: Would the Prime Minister suggest any other means whereby the full facts might be obtained on this very important subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the first place, I do not regard a Royal Commission as necessarily an instrument of acceleration. The Board of Agriculture may be trusted to make plenty of progress. There is plenty of publicity among people who are interested in the facts.

DANISH BACON.

Colonel ROPNER: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the negotiations between the British and Danish Governments with regard to the imposition of a levy on imported bacon are to be commenced; and whether there is any possibility of the new scheme coming into operation before the end of the coming year?

Dr. BURGIN: Discussions with representatives of the Danish Government are now in progress. There is no intention of bringing into force any new scheme that may be agreed before the end of this year.

WARBLE FLY.

Mr. ROBINSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps his Department is taking to protect both the British farmers and the British hides industry from the depredations of the warble fly?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am now in consultation on this subject with the Governments of Northern Ireland and of the Irish Free State, and with the local authorities in this country.

CREDITS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the present financial position of the Fur Board, he will consider suspending for the time being the obligation on that board to repay through the Ministry the indebtedness contracted under the Agricultural Credits Acts?

Mr. ELLIOT: The position of the Fur Board, which was formed as a co-operatice society in 1921 and which in 1926 became an agricultural credit society for the purposes of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, has received the sympathetic consideration of successive Governments. The board was granted a moratorium of two years in May, 1932, and in the absence of any evidence which would hold out reasonable expectation of improvement in its financial position, I regret that I cannot accede to the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (EDMONTON).

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD: 23 and 24.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) how many telephone subscribers to the Tottenham and Enfield Exchanges reside in Edmonton;
(2) whether it is intended to erect a telephone exchange in connection with the new Crown office recently erected at Edmonton?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): There are approximately 730 subscribers within the urban district of Edmonton connected with the Tottenham exchange and 790 with the Enfield exchange. Under present conditions the cost of providing a separate telephone exchange at Edmonton would not be justified.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: In view of the very great growth of that district, which will probably mean many more people wishing to become telephone subscribers, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that it would be wise to acquire at the present time a site for a telephone exchange there? It will undoubtedly be wanted in the future, and he can now get a site in a suitable position and at less expense?

Major TRYON: The economic size of a telephone exchange in outer London is about 6,000 subscribers, and the figures which I have given to the hon. Member will suggest that it will be a long time before the number of subscribers there is likely to justify an exchange.

AIR MAIL (CONTRACTS).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General what agreements he has concluded, or is under obligation to conclude, with aircraft operating companies whereby he has granted a monopoly of the carriage of mails by air; and whether he will state the names of any such companies, the routes for which the monopoly has been granted, and the date on which the monopoly will terminate?

Major TRYON: I have concluded no argreements with air companies under which a monopoly of the carriage of mails by air is granted, but, in the case of the Empire services, it naturally follows that mails are entrusted to the only British company operating on the routes.

Mr. SIMMONS: Does that mean to say that my right hon. and gallant Friend could, on the Empire routes, give another company also mails to carry?

Major TRYON: The policy of the Empire service, which is a somewhat difficult matter, is contained in an answer, given on 14th November last, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

NIGHT TRUNK TELEPHONE RATES.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General the net loss, if any, due to the system of cheap trunk telephone rates after 7 p.m.?

Major TRYON: As a result of the public response to the 1s. night call, there has been a large increase in the total receipts from night trunk traffic, and the service shows a profit.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, EDINBURGH.

Mr. GUY: 27.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what stage has now been reached in the erection of the new Government buildings on the Calton site at Edinburgh?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The scheme designed by Mr. T. S. Tait has been approved. Working drawings are in preparation with a view to entering into a contract for the commencement of work on the site in November next.

Mr. GUY: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether any decision has been taken regarding the old governor's house?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, there has been no decision on that point.

Mr. BURNETT: Is granite being used in the construction?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No.

Mr. BURNETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why not, in view of the experience with this building here?

NEW SHERIFF COURT, EDINBURGH.

Mr. GUY: 28.
asked the First Commismissioner of Works what progress has been made with the construction of the new sheriff court at Edinburgh?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The foundations and under building up to street level have now been completed, and a contract for the superstructure has recently been let.

TEACHERS (INTERCHANGE ARRANGEMENTS).

Mr. GEORGE MORRISON: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of teachers for whom interchange arrangements with the Dominions and foreign countries have been made during the last year, and with what countries?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): During the last year 75 Scottish teachers and student-teachers have taken advantage of the arrangements referred to. Of these, 17 teachers went to Canada, one each to Australia, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, two to the United States of America; and 52 Scottish student-teachers went to France and one to Germany.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Did any go to England?

SCHOOL CHILDREN.

Mr. G. MORRISON: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children aged 14 to 15 in
voluntary attendance at public schools; and what proportion this number bears to the total in the age block?

Sir G. COLLINS: The number in question at the end of the school year 1933–34 is estimated at about 21,700—about 21 per cent. of the number enrolled in the age group 13 to 14 during the previous school year. About 48 per cent. of the total were in secondary schools, 41 per cent. in advanced divisions, and 11 per cent. in primary departments.

Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the percentage ought to be 100?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do the figures show an increase over the previous year in the number of children attending school at the higher age?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (COAL, GLASGOW).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that coal delivered in wagons at Gushetfaulds Station, Glasgow, to coal dealers are frequently short by many cwts. in the weight for which they have to pay: and whether he proposes to take any steps to see that the coal is delivered at the proper weight?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. The complaints received by the Board of Trade do not indicate that the trouble is widespread, nor is it easily ascertainable how the shortage has been caused. The cost of prevention would be so heavy and so general that I do not think it would be advisable to take action to meet those comparatively few cases for which compensation cannot be recovered.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that these comparatively poor people who have to buy their coal are not defrauded when they pay for it; and is it not possible for inspectors of some kind to be sent up there to stop the practice?

Mr. GUY: Will there not be an opportunity for dealing with this point in the Weights and Measures Bill?

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wag talking to the Minister and not to the hon. Gentleman.
Is it not possible for the Department to see that an inspector is present to ensure that the proper weighing is carried out?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will convey the request to my hon. Friend. The number of cases that have been brought to our notice is extremely small.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON: 29.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what have been the principal monuments in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, the guardianship of which has been undertaken for the first time during the last 12 months?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The principal monuments taken over by deeds of gift or guardianship during the last 12 months are:

(1) In England:

Minster Lovell Manor House;
Part of the Silchester Roman Walls; The "Hurlers" Stone Circle in Cornwall; and
The portions of the Roman Wall, namely, a turret at Banks and a section east of Heddon-on-the-Wall.
In addition, deeds for giving the Department guardianship of Houghton Towers, near Ampthill, and Uffington White Horse are in process of being drawn up.

(2) In Wales:

A further portion of Denbigh Town Walls.

(3) In Scotland:

Bothwell Castle;
Bailey's Wall, Burghead, Moray.
In Orkney, Wideford Hill chambered mound, Taversoe Tuick chambered mound and Yarso burial chamber; and
In Shetland, The Ness of Burgi.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOTANICAL GARDENS, REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. BURNETT: 30.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, with a, view to abolishing the untidy area of rough stones and cinders between the pavilion and the open-air theatre in the old Botanical Gardens, Regent's Park, he will, in view of the shortage of departmental funds at his disposal for the pur-
invite nursery and horticultural firms to provide turf and plants and the Marylebone and St. Pancras municipalities to provide the labour to convert this area into a tidy lawn?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his further suggestions, but I think it preferable that the work should be done in the normal way by my Department. I hope to make a beginning next financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEME, HANWFLL.

Mr. THORNE: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the House any information relative to the London County Council's proposal to build 1,600 houses at North Hanwell, Middlesex; whether there was any opposition from the local authorities at the inquiry held; and whether he has come to a final decision with regard to this proposal on receipt of the report of his inspector who attended the inquiry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has received an application from the London County Council for approval to the erection of 1,668 houses and flats on the site of the Hanwell Residential School, and an inquiry was held on the 18th of this month. The application was opposed by the Ealing Borough Council and the West Middlesex Joint Town Planning Committee. The inspector's report is at present under consideration.

Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before a decision is given, so that the London County Council can get on with the work of building, which is very urgent?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As soon as possible. Within the next week or so.

Mr. THORNE: What is the reason of the opposition from the two local authorities in question?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LAND SALES).

Colonel ROPNER: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give the details of the cases in which local authorities empowered to buy land at the
sides of classified roads for the purpose of preserving amenities have disposed of any portion of such land for building purposes?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not able to provide the information. The three county councils who have the power to buy land in the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend have this power under local Acts which also empower them to dispose of land so acquired without my right hon. Friend's consent.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any single instance in which they have disposed of land?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We should not be informed at the Ministry of Health, and I do not happen to know.

BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent application from the Birmingham City Council for permission to build a further 4,000 houses to be let at a rental within the means of the lower-paid wage-earners; and whether, in view of the enormous demand for this class of house in the city of Birmingham, he will do what he can to accelerate the usual procedure of his Department, which will enable the city council to make an early start with this commendable building programme?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has already agreed to the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. CROOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put this question only with, the object of asking the Department to accelerate what has to be done between now and the time when the work is started, so that this programme of building may be started as soon as possible?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is a matter for the council. We have given our Approval.

WATER SUPPLY (RURAL AREAS)

Colonel ROPNER: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any recent notification of shortage of water in rural districts; and what action he is taking?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has not received any recent notification of serious shortage except in a few rural areas. In all cases brought to his notice an engineering inspector visits the locality with a view to expediting the preparation and carrying out of a permanent scheme. In rural areas generally good progress is being made, and so far grant has been provisionally allocated in respect of schemes for 1,360 parishes of a total estimated capital cost of £3,900,000.

Mr. LEVY: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are a large number of rural areas that are still buying water for industrial purposes by the bucket, and is he satisfied that the mere sending of an inspector will solve the rural water problem?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If any rural area is buying water by the bucket, it is purely its own fault. It should apply to the Ministry of Health for a grant from the money allocated for this purpose.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if they do get a grant, the rural councils will not help them?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

STEAMSHIP "NOEMIJULIA."

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British subjects were serving on the British vessel "Noemijulia" in March, 1935; what were their positions and what was their rate of pay; in what year was the "Noemijulia" built; and when was she last inspected by the representatives of the Board of Trade?

Dr. BURGIN: According to the available information, the only British subject serving on the "Noemijulia" in March, 1935, was the wireless operator, whose rate of pay is stated to be £7 a month. The vessel was built in 1895. She has not been to this country since her transfer from the Greek to the British flag in 1930. She was then inspected at Piraeus by a surveyor to Lloyd's Register of Shipping, acting on behalf of the Board of Trade.

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: In the unsatisfactory state of affairs disclosed by the answer of the hon. Gentleman,
will he consider the appointment of a committee to inquire into the whole of the circumstances of the Merchant Shipping Act with a view to its revision?

Dr. BURGIN: I hardly think that that arises out of this question. The position of British vessels that for long periods of time do not return to this country is one that is receiving the consideration of my Department.

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: Is it satisfactory that a ship which is away for five years, has only one British subject on board and has a rather non-British name, should fly the British flag?

ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).

Brigadier-General NATION: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement regarding the investigation he has been making into the question of the employment of aliens on British ships?

Dr. BURGIN: The investigations are still in progress.

Brigadier-General NATION: Is the result of the inquiry to be published in a form of a: report to be presented to Parliament and made available to Members?

Dr. BURGIN: It is a little early to discuss the form in which the information will be given to the House. After progress has been made in the investigation, and when the information is in our possession, I perhaps could inform the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.

Mr. REMER: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis his calculations were made that four-fifths of the spinning industry were in favour of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill?

Dr. BURGIN: The original votes in favour of the scheme covered 78 per cent. of the spindles represented in the ballot, though some of these votes were conditional. The proportion of two-thirds mentioned in my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst) on 23rd July represents the proportion of
spindles supporting the scheme in the industry as a whole, including those who did not vote.

Mr. REMER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade state in the Debate that four-fifths of the industry were in favour of the scheme, and is it now to be taken from the hon. Gentleman's answer that that opinion is not correct?

Dr. BURGIN: No, Sir. It was because four-fifths was stated that I pointed out that, arithmetically, the figure was 78.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that a great many of those people have since stated that they are not in favour of the scheme?

Dr. BURGIN: I think my answer covers that point.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that since the Bill was published a number of spindles, amounting to 250,000, additional to those referred to in the hon. Gentleman's reply, have expressed themselves as in favour of the Bill?

Dr. BURGIN: A large number of additional spindles have expressed approval of the Bill since the Bill was published.

Mr. REMER: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made any calculations in regard to, and will state the number of men who will be placed in unemployment through, the operations of the scheme embodied in the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill?

Dr. BURGIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) on 18th July.

Mr. REMER: Is my hon. Friend aware that the committee stated that 3,000 or 4,000 people were going to be put out of work by this scheme, and will he confirm that figure?

Dr. BURGIN: No, I have not that figure.

Mr. REMER: Is my hon. Friend aware that these statements were made by an important committee of this House?

Dr. BURGIN: No, I have not that information.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many responsible individuals in the trade have expressed the view that the only result of the introduction of the Bill will be that employment in the cotton trade will be very much better?

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL TROOPS).

Mr. MALLALIEU: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that both the civil authorities in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland have an equal right to call in Imperial troops to assist in maintaining order, but that no Minister is responsible to this House for the preservation of law and order, he will consider withdrawing Imperial troops from Northern Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Mr. MALLALIEU: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a satisfactory state of affairs that while Great Britain has no control over the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland, British troops should be called out to clear up the mess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite satisfied with the present position, and see no reason to change it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCK WORKERS, LIVERPOOL (CLEARING HOUSES).

Mr. GIBBINS: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that "E" and "D" clearing houses, Liverpool, are understaffed, and that men had to wait four hours for their pay last week; and, whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): There was unfortunately some delay at "D" clearing house, but not at "E" clearing house, on Friday week. This was due to special circumstances and not owing to shortage of staff, and steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence. There were no delays last Friday.

Mr. GIBBINS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that some clearing houses pay all day and that this is one which only pays in the afternoon; and will he take steps to make the practice uniform?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will take note of the inquiry which the hon. Member has brought to my notice, and will look into the point.

Mr. CLEARY: Does any relief take place of clerks who are on holiday at this time of the year, or who are away through sickness?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRANSFERENCE, GLASGOW.

Mr. THORNE: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men, if any, have been transferred from the Glasgow employment exchange to the collieries at Snowdon, Betteshanger, and Chislet, Kent, since 19th May, 1935, to the nearest available date?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Since the date mentioned, employment at these collieries has been found for four men registered at Glasgow employment exchange.

INSURANCE.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding the possibility of granting a capital sum or an annuity from the Unemployment Insurance Fund to contributors whose claims have been small and who have ceased work on reaching an age of 65 or 70?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, Sir.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether this matter is being energetically investigated, particularly in view of the fact that a no-claims bonus is now a recognised feature of most forms of insurance?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The point is one which has been brought to the notice of the Department at various times. I cannot go beyond the particular answer that I have given.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: If a bonus is not given, will a reduction of the contributions paid by the employés be considered?

SEASONAL WORKERS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to make
changes in the administration of the regulations dealing with seasonal workers?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have made a report on this subject, and my right hon. Friend has tabled a Resolution for giving effect to their recommendations. The report and the draft Order which my right hon. Friend proposes to make were published this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — HELIGOLAND.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 53.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the Anglo-German naval discussions, the use of the island of Heligoland by Germany as a; submarine or aircraft base was considered; and whether, in the course of the demolition of fortifications by Great Britain after the War, anything was done to prevent the flat top of the island from being used as a landing ground for aeroplanes?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my right hon. Friend recognise how important it is that Heligoland should not be used as an aircraft base by Germany?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR SERVICES (FOREIGN ROUTES).

Mr. SIMMONDS: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what practical steps he has taken to encourage the inauguration of air transport services outside the British Isles by companies other than Imperial Airways, Limited?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): My hon. Friend is aware of the existing contracts with Imperial Airways and of the arrangements approved by the late Government with regard to the expansion and improvement of the Empire routes. The Air Ministry has assisted other companies by supporting the necessary applications to foreign Governments and by providing as far as possible essential meteorological and wireless facilities.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this is a very poor form of assistance compared with that
which foreign Governments are giving to their nationals; and will he not consider taking much more energetic steps to encourage other British companies to open up foreign air routes?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EAST AFRICA (SETTLERS).

Brigadier-General NATION: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the number of British (white) and foreign settlers that have entered Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika during the last 10 years?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Malcolm. MacDonald): The statistics at my disposal do not enable me to answer this question with precision. I am communicating with the Governors concerned, and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result.

Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the entry of foreigners into these Colonies is increasing or decreasing at the present time?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid I shall have to wait until I get the information for which I am sending.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRATION).

Brigadier-General NATION: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews of British nationality and how many of foreign have entered Palestine during the last 10 years?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: During the ten years ended on 31st December, 1934, out of 148,280 Jews entering Palestine as immigrants, 2,318 came from the British Empire and 145,982 from foreign countries. It may be assumed that most of the former were British subjects or British protected persons.

Brigadier-General NATION: With regard to the latter figure, can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what are the numbers from Italy and Germany?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am afraid I have not those figures available. If I can discover them, I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

TECHNICAL EDUCATION, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. CHORLTON: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education the latest figure relative to the number of students attending at the technical schools in those towns in Lancashire mainly engaged in cotton manufacture?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The total number of students in attendance during the year ended 31st July, 1934, at technical and similar schools in those towns in Lancashire mainly engaged in cotton manufacture, was 85,452., of whom 2,791 were full-time students and 82,661 were part-time students. The towns have been selected on the basis of the industry tables of the census of 1931.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can my hon. Friend give the House the figures for an earlier year, to indicate the big drop that has occurred?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that his Department is doing everything in its power to draw the attention of students and young people in these towns to the great shortage of skilled technical workers?

EMPIRE PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.

Mr. THORNE: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inquire if the funds of the Empire Parliamentary Association will permit of a printed report of the conference of representatives from the Legislatures of the Empire, which was held in London recently, being presented to the House, in view of the special grant made by the Treasury for the purposes of this conference?

Mr. COOPER: I understand that a printed report of the conference is now being prepared for circulation to members of the association, and that a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that more than 500 Members of Parliament belong to this useful organisation? If the remainder were to join, would not any difficulties be removed?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SICK LEAVE).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can furnish any comparative statistics as to the respective sick absences of males and females in the public service?

Mr. COOPER: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Statistics relating to the sick absences of some 50,000 established non-industrial Civil Servants in certain large Departments, other than the Post Office, indicate that the average number of days' sick leave per annum taken by men and women during the years 1932, 1933 and 1934 were as follow:


Men (disabled)
…
…
11.8


Men (others)
…
…
8.6


Women
…
…
12.9

Corresponding figures for the Post Office, relating to about 150,000 established persons, are—


Men (disabled)
…
…
15.1


Men (others)
…
…
10.7


Women
…
…
12.2

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. MABANE: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any further information to give the House about the revision of the original demarcation by local authorities of restricted areas and areas free from restriction?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass). I can only add that the work of making further adjustments as the situation may require is being urged forward as rapidly as possible.

Mr. MABANE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the growing indignation at the tardiness with which the local authorities are backing up the efforts of the Ministry of Transport in this matter?

Captain HUDSON: I think my right hon. Friend answered a question on that point last week.

MOTOR VEHICLES (OVERTAKING).

Mr. TINKER: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of some drivers of motor vehicles going at top speed past other vehicles which have drawn up owing to the traffic lights being against them and who can only start slowly when the lights change; and whether he will see if some warning can be issued so as to prevent what will otherwise lead to accidents?

Captain A. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been drawn to the practice to which the hon. Member refers, but, as the matter appears to be one primarily for the police, he is consulting his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

HORSE-DRAWN TRAFFIC.

Mr. GARDNER: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, when framing the policy recently announced of discouraging and eliminating, as far as possible, horse-drawn traffic from large towns at an early date, he has had due regard not only to the factor of greater speed and convenience for motor transport but also to the possible effect of such a policy on agriculture and the need of maintaining horses for other national services including in an emergency, as in 1918, a posible source of food supply?

Captain HUDSON: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. LOGAN: In view of the fact that there are 5,000 people unemployed in Liverpool, is it possible to make some definite statement on the question of employment on the roads?

Captain HUDSON: This is a definite question, which I have answered. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on the further point he has in mind.

TRAFFIC, NOTTING HILL GATE.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the increasing congestion of traffic at Notting Hill Gate and to the long delay caused by the working of the traffic lights; whether he is considering either making a by-pass here or a
widening; and whether, in the meantime, he can do anything to improve the working of the traffic signals?

Captain HUDSON: I am aware of the conditions at Notting Hill Gate, and my right hon. Friend has for some time been in consultation with the responsible highway authorities to secure the extension of the Western Avenue eastwards through Paddington, which would relieve Notting Hill Gate. He is also in communication with the London County Council regarding a widening at this point. My right hon. Friend is examining the possibility of improving the operation of the traffic signals.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that these signals have only very recently been established there; and are still in a more or less experimental stage; and, further, apart from the desirability of the extension of Western Avenue, is he aware that the main necessity is for the widening of the narrow "gut" of this arterial road, which is a matter for the London County Council, of which the hon. Member was a distinguished member until recently?

Mr. J. RUTHERFORD: Will my hon. and gallant Friend consider making the extension of Western Road by Westbourne Grove, and not by Westbourne Park Grove?

Captain HUDSON: That is a different question.

WHARTON ROAD, STRATFORD.

Mr. GROVES: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that an application has been made by the West Ham Corporation for permission to fix a pedestrian crossing opposite the entrance to the playing field for children at Wharton Road, High Street, Stratford, and that permission has been refused by his Department; and whether, as this road is much used by motor lorries and heavy traffic generally, as it is estimated that the playing field will be used by 400 or 500 children, and As there is no pedestrian crossing for 30 yards either side of the entrance to the playing field, he will, in consultation with the local highways authority, reconsider his decision on this matter?

Captain HUDSON: No formal proposal has been submitted to my Department by
the council, but if and when it is, my right hon. Friend will examine it at once.

Mr. GROVES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the local highways authority have opened this playing field specially for the holiday season, and that the children will be back at school again after that?

Captain HUDSON: I do not think my Department can be expected to deal with this matter until the local authority apply to them.

Mr. GROVES: Surely the local highways department knows more about the local requirements than the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department?

Captain HUDSON: I do not quite see the point that the hon. Member is making.

Mr. GROVES: The local authority has opened a playing field specially for the children during their school holidays, and we want a pedestrian crossing-place put there before the children go back to school. Therefore, we want it at once. We made application for it.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ECONOMIC SANCTIONS).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS (for Miss RATHBONE): 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recently issued report of the Committee of the League of Nations which has been considering economic sanctions has yet been printed; and whether, in view of its possible bearing on the Italo-Abyssinian dispute, he will secure that it shall be made available to Members at the earliest possible date?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The Committee to which the hon. Member refers has not yet reported to the Council. It is at present considering reports prepared by its sub-committees, but these documents have not been made public.

Oral Answers to Questions — TITHE.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the report of the Royal Commission on Tithe will be published?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am not in a position to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 27th June last.

Mr. LEWIS: Does my right hon. Friend hope that this publication will take place before we re-assemble after the Summer Recess?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot make any further statement than I made last week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 29.

Division No. 303.]
AYES.
[3.43 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Graves, Marjorie
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grimston, R. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Patrick, Colin M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pearson, William G.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hales, Harold K.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Petherick, M.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pickering, Ernest H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Power, Sir John Cecil


Blindell, James
Hartington, Marquess of
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Boulton, W. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rea, Sir Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Remer, John R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, John Roland


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rothschild, James A. de


Butler, Richard Austen
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, Frank
Levy, Thomas
Somervell, Sir Donald


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Cooke, Douglas
Llewellin, Major John J.
Storey, Samuel


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Copeland, Ida
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Mabane, William
Tate, Mavis Constance


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Cross, R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Sir Luke


Crossley, A. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Davison, Sir William Henry
Maltland, Adam
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dickie, John P.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Eales, John Frederick
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Wise, Alfred R.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Moreing, Adrian C.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, Robert H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)



Goldie, Noel B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Munro, Patrick
Sir A. Lambert-Ward.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Dobble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, Sir Charles
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clemant H.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Banfield, John William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Man[...])
Gibbins, J.
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cleary, J. J.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wilmot, John


Cove, William G.
Logan, David Gilbert



Daggar, George
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Public Health (Water and Sewerage) (Scotland) Bill,

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill, without Amendment.

HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT (CONVENTIONS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to adopt standard widths for roads.)

3.52 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "in the London Gazette," and to insert:
to be sent to any person whose name and address are for the time being entered in the register kept by the highway authority for the purpose in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
During the course of the Committee stage the Government accepted an arrangement whereby a register was to be kept of all persons who might be interested in the roads, so that they could receive notice of what was to happen under the resolution, and this Amendment is merely consequential upon that arrangement.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: So important a matter as this should not be allowed to pass without thanks being given to the Minister. This is not one of the essential matters of the Bill or even of this particular Clause, but, in view of the difficulties which many of us have had with regard to the Bill, we ought to be willing and ready to pay a tribute to the Minister for having met this point with regard to the register. The making of a register of those who are concerned in this matter is of vital importance to those whose property is nearby or adjacent to the road to be dealt with. Many of us objected to the original provision, and considered that it was bad drafting to leave out of account those who are primarily interested on one side of the question. The concession which the Minister has made will be most helpful to many small owners of property, and, speaking entirely on my own behalf, I would like to thank the Minister very sincerely for what he has done in this concession, and to assure him that I am deeply grateful.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I do not quite agree with my hon. namesake the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in this connection. It is true that a register has to be drawn up, but if the name of a person has to go on that register, it will be necessary to make, in the case of large corporate bodies, for example, like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or a railway company, thousands of requests to be registered before they will have any assurance that there is a proposal under the Clause to pass a resolution. Though the actual mileage likely to be dealt with under the Clause will not be very great, nevertheless, in order to protect themselves they will have to register all property included in the maximum width of 160 feet on every road. Everybody concerned with respect to every road in the country will have to make application to be put on the register before they have any assurance that, if a resolution is brought forward, they are likely to hear of it.
Surely it is better that the words "in the London Gazette" should remain? Organised bodies such as the Surveyors' and other institutions would make a practice of studying what appeared in the London Gazette, and would take appropriate steps to warn people who might own property in the district concerned, so that persons likely to be affected would know about it. The Amendment is definitely a reactionary one, and in actual practice will be very difficult to work. Interests or persons who may have land in various parts of the country will have an intolerable burden put upon them under Clause 5, if they have to make sure that they are adequately protected against what may happen under Clause 1. I very much regret the form of the Amendment. If the words "in the London Gazette" were retained, with these additional words the matter would be more satisfactory.

Mr. MABANE: As one of those whose names are down to this Amendment, I wish to thank the Minister for undertaking to accept it. The short answer to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is that, if work has to be done to secure the registration of any land, it will have to be done in order that a check can properly be kept of any
announcement made in the London Gazette. It is far simpler that the form of the Amendment should be adopted in order that all rights should be equally safeguarded.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: This question was fully discussed and voted upon in the Committee upstairs. The vote showed that the majority of Members of the Committee, after having heard the full discussion, came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that notice should be put in the London Gazette. Now that the Bill has come down on to the Floor of the House, we find that, without those hon. Members who voted in favour of the inclusion of the London Gazette being consulted, an Amendment has been moved which is an absolute reversal of the vote which took place upstairs. I hope that I shall not be considered offensive when I say that this is reducing the Committee stage of the Bill to a farce. The Bill was sent upstairs for adequate and proper discussion, and after a discussion the majority of the Members of the Committee voted for a certain thing, which, in this instance, was against the Minister. Now when the Bill comes up on Report we find that that upon which the Committee voted is being reversed. The Amendment is certainly not as good as the provision to leave in the London Gazette, and I shall vote against it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I think that the hon. Member has given only a partial account of what happened in the Committee, and that he could not have been present there when the matter now before the House was discussed on a second occasion. The Amendment is really part of a concession made by the Minister, and certainly there is no question in this instance of his changing, or attempting to change, a decision of the Committee. In fact the Amendment now before the House was accepted by the Committee, but rules of procedure did not permit of it being disposed of in the Committee stage.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: Actually the Amendment goes a great deal further than that on which the Government were beaten upstairs. The Minister has done his very best to meet the objections raised. Not only does the Clause provide that the
notice is to be sent to two of the local papers, but it is also provided in the Amendment that the notice must be sent to the person in question. Therefore, the objections of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) are entirely unjustified.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after "specifying," to insert:
the places and times at which plans may be inspected, showing.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think we might have an explanation from the Government as to exactly how this will be done. I know that this is in the nature of a concession which many of us wanted, but we ought to know what kind of proposals the Minister has in mind. The Minister is not usually averse from publicity, and I think he might tell us how these matters are to be dealt with.

4.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: May I point out that the inspection will be very inadequate unless there is some means whereby the owner or occupier of the land can obtain a copy of the plans? It would very greatly help society at large if the local authority could be required by a ruling or by a circular from the Ministry of Transport to place copies of plans, at a, reasonable charge, at the disposal of persons as required. That would be an easy thing for the Ministry to secure by circular and it would be very easy, too, for the local authorities to comply with. If it is merely a question of inspection, it is not possible, in practice, to copy the plans; and the ordnance maps for the most part show none of the 500,000 houses built during the last five years. It is urgent that there should be some means of getting plans circulated to those concerned. If the Minister could undertake by circular to get the local authorities to provide photostats, or copies made of plans in some other way, he would save a lot of trouble to those who have to deal with local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 20, leave out from "made," to "to," in line 21.—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

4.5 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Hudson): I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "widths," to "which," in line 28.
The House will see that this means leaving out the words "not exceeding one hundred and sixty feet," and it must be read in conjunction with the next Amendment. The reason is that if you have an embankment or cutting it will be necessary for the foot of the embankment or the top of the cutting, if you are to have a 160-foot road, to have more than 160 feet. In Committee it was decided that the Minister should not have power to exceed 160 feet for a road and for that reason it is necessary to make this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I wish to thank the Minister for moving this Amendment, in response to a suggestion which I made to him in the Committee stage. I think it will fulfil the object in view.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 37, at the end, insert:
and
(b) if any such regulations prescribe a standard width exceeding one hundred and sixty feet, the regulations shall direct that such standard width may be adopted only so far as may be necessary for making provision for any embankment or cutting required for the road as respects which it is adopted."—[Captain Hudson.]

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(5) In determining the standard width to be adopted as respects any road, a highway authority and the Minister shall take into account the requirements of all classes of traffic, including foot passengers and cyclists, likely to use the road, and shall consider the provision of margins for the accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock.
It is essential that in any provision we make in regard to roads we should give consideration to all classes of road users. In the past, unfortunately, many of those who have a legitimate right to use the roads have felt, and with great justice, that their rights have been somewhat neglected by the application of conditions suitable only for motor traffic.
Particularly is this so in regard to pedestrians and cyclists, and perhaps more still with regard to ridden or driven horses and livestock. In addition, it is in the interests of the motorists themselves that horses and livestock should be, as far as possible, removed from the traffic centre of the road, because there is nothing more difficult for the motorist than to have to negotiate herds of driven stock or horses which are being ridden. It is very much better to have roads which will serve the interests of all users, particularly as the surface of the road is not always suitable for horse traffic. I should like to thank the Minister for the intimation he has given that he would be prepared to accept this Amendment, in carrying out the pledge given to the Committee upstairs on this point. On reading the amended form of the Amendment which I have on the Paper I must confess that I thought it perhaps weakened my original Amendment, but I shall rely on the Minister not only to accept the Amendment as it is, but to act upon it in the spirit in which he expressed himself in the Committee.

Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: I beg to second the Amendment, which, I think, contains a very valuable principle.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I feel that the Government would go back on their word if they did not advise the House to accept this Amendment, especially as on the Committee stage of the Bill my hon. Friend urged that all classes of road users should have consideration, and particularly those who are sometimes forgotten—those classes of road users who ride horses or drive livestock. I shall be pleased to accept this Amendment.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to thank the Minister for a concession which will be much appreciated in the rural districts and in other places as well, but I think that the expression "ridden horses" might lead to difficulty if it is held to exclude horses which are led. This is rather a question for lawyers. If I can be assured that led horses come under the heading of "driven livestock" I am quite content. If it does, it only remains for me to thank the Minister. I think he is making the Bill in this respect more practical and more in the interests of the public welfare.

Mr. MABANE: May I suggest that some time before the Bill is submitted for the Royal Assent the Minister should strike out the jargon "as respects," and put in the word "for"?

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), it might be that led horses would not be included either under "ridden horses" or "driven livestock." It occurs to me that it is quite possible that regulations might be framed which, unintentionally, might allow of horses being ridden on the margin, and which would not allow a man to lead a horse at the same time.

4.13 p.m.

Sir A. WILSON: In thanking the Minister for this valuable concession, I should like to point out that the Postmaster-General's telephone poles are by far the most serious obstacle to the use of the verges of roads. These poles are being put up in increasing numbers close to the verges, or within six inches of them, and unless the Postmaster-General seeks fresh powers to take telephone wires across country and avoid the verges on existing and new roads, there will be little improvement, in practice, in spite of the efforts of the Minister of Transport. The real obstacle to using the verges of roads, in nine cases out of ten, is the constant interposition of the stays of poles or of the poles themselves in ever increasing numbers. I hope that the Minister of Transport will take up this matter with the Postmaster-General as soon as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Restriction, of building development along frontages of certain roads.)

4.14 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, after "the," to insert:
planning authority or, until such authority is in operation, the.
As the Bill stands, the authority which has to be appealed to in this matter is the highway authority. Many of us on the Committee thought, and I think almost everyone in the country thinks, that the obvious authority for the purpose is the planning authority. We have heard from the Minister again and again during these
Debates that one of the great objects of the Bill is to have some sort of regard for the amenities of a district as a whole. If you are to have regard to the amenities of the district as a whole, quite clearly the planning authority, when set up, is the authority which should deal with the matter.
The reason given by the Minister for not making any change in the Bill when it was in Committee was that there were many areas in which a planning authority had not been set up so far. But those areas are getting fewer and fewer every day. It has been laid down by Parliament that in the development of every locality there should be a planning authority, to look at these matters from a broad point of view, to consider the amenities and needs of a district, and the whole of the other things which should be considered in the development of roads or house-building. We ask the Minister of Transport to make the planning authority the authority to deal with this matter. We recognise that it is essential that there should be all possible speed in this matter. If the Minister accepts the Amendment he will not only help himself and his Department, but will encourage the feeling that the planning which we desire is a real effort which must be encouraged at every stage. If the Minister turns down the Amendment he will strike a blow at the value of the Bill, and will make it, more difficult for the planning authorities to realise that they are carrying out a most valuable work.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to draw attention to my fears about the confusion that may result from this Bill if this Amendment, or some words similar to it, be not accepted. Only three years ago this House passed the Town and Country Planning Act for the planning of our countryside, and in the carrying out of that Act there are already some 17,000,000 acres being planned under certain planning authorities. Here the Minister of Transport comes on the scene with a Bill running parallel to the Town and Country Planning Act, which is looked after by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Transport says: "I will put the whole of the scope of this Bill in the hands of new authorities, who will be the authorities for carrying it out." Quite
naturally the Minister of Transport puts the work into the hands of the highway authorities. He is more acquainted with and more sympathetic to the aims of the highway authorities.
If the Bill goes through in its present form what will happen will be that some authorities which have now a planning authority will find that planning authority different from and hostile to the highway authority which the Minister of Transport is putting up. We have to do one thing or another: We have either to say that the Town and Country Planning Act must be repealed and the whole of the work of planning given to the highway authority as under this Bill, or we have to link the Act and this Bill together and say, "Where you have a planning authority which is carrying out its obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act that will be the authority in charge of Clause 2 of this Bill, but where there is no planning authority in operation we shall choose the highway authority to do this new work."
I would draw attention to what will occur in my own part of Yorkshire. There we are forward in our planning. We are carrying out the Town and Country Planning Act energetically—more energetically than the rest of England, I believe. Some of the North Riding is under the planning of the rural district councils, and some of it is under the planning of the county council. If this Bill goes through in its present form what will happen will be that for the restriction of ribbon development the whole of an area will be under the county council, although for Town and Country Planning Act purposes great parts of it are under the rural district councils. Hon. Members known that there is a considerable amount of jealousy between county councils and rural district councils. If we do not provide for that jealousy we shall find that this Bill will not be carried out as well as we wish it to be.

4.22 p.m.

Sir A. WILSON: I would like to speak in support of the Amendment, as my name is attached to it. The planning authorities are selected on a much wider basis than the highway authorities. Very frequently they cover a wider area than the highway authorities, and in view of all that has been said they seem to me to be the obvious bodies to which this
question should be referred if possible. I can see no serious administrative objection to the Amendment, and I hope that the Minister will give us at least some hope that the planning authorities will be encouraged. They have not the prestige of the highway authorities, but I believe the future of England is in their hands and not in those of the highway authorities.

4.23 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Nearly every Member of the House is in sympathy with the Amendment, which suggests that road development should be part of town planning. The whole foundation of the Bill is that it is a road and transport Bill. I always thought that that was a mistake, and that the approach should be rather on new town-planning lines. I am afraid that if the Amendment is accepted it will undermine the whole foundation of the Bill. Clause 8 does make some provision for co-operation between the highway authority and the town-planning authority. If it is not possible to accept the words of the Amendment, it should be made clear at some later stage or by an assurance from the Minister that there is proper provision for co-operation between the two agencies.

4.24 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) said, the point as to whether it should be the planning authority or the highway authority was very fully discussed on Second Reading, when a number of speakers mentioned it, and also when we were in Standing Committee.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I said it was briefly discussed.

Captain HUDSON: This Bill is essentially a Bill to deal with the highways and with traffic problems. I see that later on the Order Paper certain hon. Members have an Amendment to alter the title of the Bill. We consider that it would be impossible to divide between two different bodies the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 is purely a traffic Clause. Clause 2 is what we call an amenities Clause. The two are continually overlapping. In fact, as regards access, under both Clause 1 and Clause 2, by an Amendment moved in Committee, the Road Fund is to be avail-
able for use when access is brought into consideration, as it would be utterly impossible to have two separate authorities. We had the point made continually on Second Reading that the planning authorities have already got certain powers but have not succeeded in stopping ribbon development. It was for that very reason that the House asked for a Bill of this kind to be introduced. If we go back to the planning authority now we merely go back to the very authority which for various reasons has not stopped ribbon development. We have arranged for co-operation between the planning authorities and the highway authorities under Clause 7, Sub-section (2), and under Clause 8. I am sure the House will agree, as it agreed on Second Reading, that this must be a Highway Bill, and that you must have one authority acting under oth Clauses 1 and 2, in order to stop ribbon development, and to give power to a separate authority.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I think the House will regret very much, after all that has been said on Second Reading and in Committee about this aspect of the question, that the Minister has not seen fit to do something to meet the point of view expressed in the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary says that this is primarily and fundamentally a traffic Bill.

Captain HUDSON: A highway Bill.

Mr. WILMOT: But it is not fundamentally and primarily a highway problem. The main and fundamental problem is the wanton destruction of the amenities of rural England. Part of the disadvantages which flow from the attempt to profiteer at the expense of Britain's landscape is that the use of the highway is obstructed or rendered dangerous. That is one of the evils which flow from ribbon development. It is not a traffic problem or a highway problem; it is a town-planning problem. The Minister made another very important admission. He told us what we all knew, that the planning authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act already have powers to do nearly everything which this Bill sets out in the amenity Clauses to do. It is very curious legislation that, having by one Act empowered one set of authorities to
do a certain thing, because for some reason that Act has not been worked, you pass another Bill empowering an entirely different authority to do the same thing. It is bound to create confusion and overlapping, and the result of that confusion and overlapping will be that nothing will be done, because this part of the Bill is permissive and not obligatory. If for any reason the powers of this Bill are not used—whether for the same reason that the powers of the Town and Country Planning Act have not been used, or any other reason—it will mean that the ribbon builder will go on. Time is running against us, for every week that goes by fresh miles of England's beauty are being irreparably destroyed.
Why is it that the planning authorities have not used the powers that we gave them to stop ribbon development? The answer, of course, is finance. Here, the Minister is making a grant out of the Road Fund to the highway authority of expect he will argue that he cannot give money out of the Road Fund to anybody but the highway authority. Why not? Surely the House can authorise the Minister, for this special and urgent purpose, to make a grant out of the Road Fund to the authority which is already entrusted with this work, thereby revitalising the Town and Country Planning Act, and separating the two aspects of this problem—the destruction of the highway and the destruction of rural England. They are separate problems, and must be treated in separate ways. The highway authority is the proper authority to deal with access, and the town planning authority should be the people to be entrusted with the preservation of the amenities of the district. They have been appointed for that purpose. The Town Planning Act gives them the powers, and so far as powers are widened by this Bill it should be a widening of the powers of the existing authority, and they should also have the necessary financial assistance to enable them to carry out the work. I feel certain that the Bill would work much better if some arrangement of that kind were made.

4.32 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. The Bill is much better left, as it is. I do not think
the Bill will lead to confusion and overlapping, because the highway authority is a much larger body than the town planning authority. Many local authorities, rural councils, will be the planning authority, whereas the highway authority in county areas is a much larger body, and consequently you would get more uniformity and less overlapping if you left it to the highway authority.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, not because I have been convinced by the arguments of the Government. I must, indeed, express my regret that the Minister insists on leaving the Bill worse than I should have made it by my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, after "house," to insert "not erected adjacent to such a building."
In the Committee stage there was a good deal of discussion as to whether the words "otherwise than as a dwelling house," should be left in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary made the strong point that it would be impossible to take them out, because you could not tell whether the man who was living in the house was really an agriculturist. In our leisure moments we all like to imagine ourselves as farmers, and might desire to build houses by the roadside, saying that they were for the purposes of agriculture. It is no good having the concession to be allowed to put up agricultural buildings if we are not allowed to put up farmworkers' cottages, or farm houses in the middle of these buildings. You cannot keep stock away from the dwelling-house. You must have your farmworkers living near the stock in order to look after them. It is not a good answer to say that no highway authority in their senses would refuse to give consent, and I think we should spare the highway authority that test of their sanity. At the moment when we are trying to get more houses built on the land, it is a pity that Parliament by any measure should do anything to stop the erection of houses for those who are working on the land.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a proposal which must have the sympathy of every hon. Member in the House. We fully realise the difficulties of getting people on the land. If you are building agricultural labourers' cottages very little harm is done to the highway, and there is no likelihood of additional danger. Further, if people have to go a considerable way from their home in order to get on to the main road, it is a consideration which is likely to discourage labour living on the land. I am putting the purely rural point of view. There are other questions like the care of cattle, but I think there can be only one possible objection, and that is the safety of children, but that is a difficulty which, I think, might be got over quite easily. I feel sure that the Minister who has so far met us with great fairness, with his colossal Department will be able to get over that small objection. I consider that the Amendment is in the best interests of the smooth working of the Bill in agricultural districts, and unless it is favourably received by the agricultural community, it will not do that good which we all want. I hope the Minister will take the common sense view and accept the Amendment.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has staked out a claim on me for this concession by thanking me liberally in advance for what the Government have done. I find it extremely difficult to resist his appeal, but he has himself made it all the easier by pointing out some of the difficulties in accepting the Amendment—the risks which will be run by children. I express some surprise that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) should have moved this Amendment, as only a moment or two ago he was anxious that the town planning authority should have complete jurisdiction. Presumably, he was anxious to do what the Bill in part does, namely, plan the development by the roadside. We have placed restrictions upon buildings by whomsoever undertaken except for the purposes of agriculture and in connection with the occupation of agricultural land. We have placed restrictions upon access by whomsoever required except for the purposes of agriculture, for which purposes access cannot be refused. In these and other respects we have shown our solicitude for an industry
indigenous to the soil. In the course of drafting the Bill we were in close touch with agricultural interests, who expressed themselves as being entirely satisfied, if not grateful, for the manner in which they have been regarded in this Measure. No agricultural Member has in the course of the discussions expressed himself as being otherwise than pleased, and it is not within my recollection that any agricultural Member has asked for more for his industry than is contained in the Bill.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I represent agriculture.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member represents many other interests, and I was speaking exclusively of those who represent agriculture. I meant no reflection upon the hon. Member, and if he wishes me to withdraw and apologise I will do so. The reason is that agriculture does not wish these concessions to the industry to be capable of abuse. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton in his Amendment asks that not only agricultural buildings should be exempt but dwelling houses when they are adjacent to such buildings. He did not favour us with the definition of "adjacent" for this purpose, and I do not gather from the wording of the Amendment how near to the agricultural buildings these houses are to be.

Mr. TURTON: The words "adjacent to" occur in nearly every Act of Parliament, and if the Minister will consult the Solicitor-General who is next door to him he will give him the interpretation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The words "adjacent to" in other Acts of Parliament may have a general application, but here it is something specific; it is to be adjacent to the building. However, I do not wish to stand upon any technical objection to the Amendment. What my hon. Friend is asking for is that any number of houses or cottages, provided they are fortunate enough to have agricultural buildings near them, shall be erected without the consent of the highway authority. It is to be observed that anybody may obtain consent for the erection of what is reasonable; all they have to do is to apply to the highway authority. My hon. Friend wishes to dispense with this formal consent, and to dispense with it in a manner which might give rise to considerable building on the side
of the road, with all its consequent dangers which by this Measure we are anxious to circumscribe. I hope that my hon. Friend, despite his keen feeling that these agricultural dwellings should be erected, will not seek to insert this further exemption in the Bill, which must be a cause of weakness rather than strength.

4.44 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The Minister of Transport has said that no agricultural member has asked for more. On behalf of a certain agricultural body I did thank the Minister very much for the way he has met us in this Bill, but I do not think it is quite right to say that no agriculturist has asked for more. If he thought he could have got more, no doubt he would have asked for more. We feel that under this Bill you can get the consent of the highway authority. In my own county a good many agriculturists will ask for consent, and we are justified in believing that the highway authority will give consent where it does not interfere with their road. Agriculturists, on the whole, are satisfied with what the Minister has done for them.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 7.—(General provisions as to consent.)

4.46 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, to leave out Subsection (4), and to insert:
(4) If any applicant for consent is aggrieved by any decision of the highway authority under this section withholding any consent or imposing any condition he may appeal to the Minister who, after consultation with the Minister in charge of any other Government Department concerned, may make such order as he thinks fit, and the decision of the Minister shall be final:
Provided that before determining any such appeal the Minister shall, if required either by the highway authority or by the applicant, cause a local inquiry to be held in public, and in giving his decision upon any such appeal the Minister shall publish a summary of the facts as found by him and of his reasons for the decision.
In moving the Amendment I will offer a few considerations which I hope will weigh with the Committee when they form their judgment upon this important matter. This Bill makes a fundamental
alteration in the law and practice to which we have grown accustomed. It removes in terms certain rights previously enjoyed by individuals to control development alongside the roads and puts the control henceforward in the hands of the highway authorities, the objects being to minimise the present dangers to life and limb which result from the erection of houses and buildings with their own means of access at innumerable and ill-considered points along the road, to remove the obstruction to the free passage of traffic and to prevent the further impairment of the setting in which the roads lie. Consequently, it will become illegal, generally speaking—I am not dealing with the precise nuances of exemptions in favour of agriculture and other interests—to build on or to make access to a road without consent. That procedure is the only way open to us to check the present evils, of which much complaint is made. It is the procedure of transferring from the individual to the highway authority control of what is to be done along the sides of the roads.
When the Bill was introduced it contained a provision that appeals against refusals of consent which the highway authority has power to withhold or make conditional should be to the Minister, as the overlying and co-ordinating authority responsible to Parliament for the success of this Measure. An Amendment, however, was inserted in Committee which, while not removing the responsibility from the highway authority and the Minister for making a success of this Measure, nevertheless took away from them the power to make it successful and transferred appeals to the petty sessions and from the petty sessions to the quarter sessions. The Amendment was advanced on the ground that it was the fulfilment of the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. We have since seen published a letter from the chairman of that committee, which appeared in the "Times" and made it plain that the argument that the Amendment was fulfilling the recommendations of that Committee was a complete misapprehension. I will read part of the letter, which I have no doubt will be taken into account by hon. Members, and extracts from the Report, which was quoted, I think wrongly quoted, upstairs. This is the
letter of the chairman of the committee who, it will be acknowledged, speaks with some authority upon the subject:
We never doubted for a moment that executive or administrative decisions depending on policy lay within the true functions of Ministers.
They never doubted that.
It was only justiciable disputes on fact or law which we said should in the normal case be dealt with judicially by a court. The questions as to whether it is right or wrong in regard either to traffic dangers or the preservation of amenity that ribbon houses should be built alongside a highway, or that access from them should be allowed to the highway anywhere and everywhere or only at stated intervals, are questions of public policy which are wholly, or at least in the main, administrative and not justiciable.
I need not read the whole of the letter, which simply gives emphasis to the passage which I have read. Reference to the Report itself will show, on page 93, that the Committee concisely stated its opinion when it said:
A decision which ultimately turns on administrative policy should normally be taken by the executive Minister.
I imagine that no single person will deny that the building of a road, with conditions of safety and the determination where access to buildings should be along that road, is an administrative matter, involving no question of law, for the law is here, in this Bill, and no question of fact, because the highway authority has or has not as a fact given or refused consent in any particular case. The Committee further, on page 114, draws a clear distinction between those powers which are purely judicial and those which are quasi-judicial or administrative only.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the case that consent has been unreasonably refused a question for judicial determination or not?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is certainly not a question for judicial determination. Parliament, if it passes this Bill, will have decided formally, and with all the authority that it can command, that there shall be no building within the limits laid down in this Bill alongside a road, nor shall there be access except at such points as shall be allowed by the highway authority. In other words, it is seeking to reverse the whole of the present procedure, whereby anybody may build and anybody may have access wherever he or she may desire. It
becomes, therefore, a purely technical question for the surveyors in charge of the construction of the road to determine henceforth where points of access shall ideally rest. I may revert to that question in a minute or two, having paused to answer the question, addressed to me.
I was saying that the Committee draws a clear distinction between those powers which are purely judicial and those which are quasi-judicial, a distinction which was quite obliterated from, the recognition of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir Arnold Wilson) in the interesting and able letter which he had in the "Times" this morning. He quoted the judicial passages, the passages in the report which referred to judicial disputes and not those which referred to administrative disputes. The Committee say that both those classes of disputes, the judicial and the quasi-judicial,
involve a dispute between parties, the presentation by the parties of their case, and the ascertainment of the facts underlying the dispute by means of evidence adduced by the parties themselves. But a judicial decision is one which must be based on the application of the law of the land to the facts so ascertained; whereas in the nature of things that can never be the basis of a quasi-judicial decision, for a quasi-judicial decision involves considerations of public policy, and in the last resort the decision is not a decision as to the respective legal rights and obligations of the parties, but a decision as to what it is in the public interest to do.
On page 115 the passage continues:
When all the facts have been ascertained and the contentions of the disputants have been appreciated, the question in the last resort is a question of public policy.
We have expressed the opinion that quasi-judicial decisions fall properly within the province of executive Ministers, who are responsible for policy and should control, direct and administer it, and that such decisions should not ordinarily be assigned to any tribunal other than the Minister.
Finally, we have the committee's recommendations, on page 116:
Quasi-judicial decisions fall naturally to Ministers themselves and not to Courts of Law or Ministerial Tribunals.
Every Minister exercising a judicial or, quasi-judicial function and every Ministerial Tribunal exercising a judicial function should give the decision in the form of a reasoned document.
Those recommendations we carry out in this Amendment.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that he is carrying out the recommendations of the committee by this Amendment? Does he not know that they also recommend that the inspectors' reports should be pubished to the parties concerned?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend can show me that I am not carrying out the recommendations of the committee I shall be obliged, but he might allow me to pursue my argument instead of favouring the House with his opinions in the middle of my speech. He must know that those opinions are bound to suffer somewhat if they are presented in a disjointed manner. I say we are, in this Amendment, carrying out the recommendations of the committee. We say in the Amendment that the Minister, "after consultation with the appropriate Department"—that is to say if it is a mining matter, the Mines Department, if it is a health matter, the Ministry of Health, and if it is an agricultural matter, the Ministry of Agriculture—"may make such order as he thinks fit." We propose to insert those words in order to increase the opportunities for compromise—so that there shall not be an obligation on the Minister to confine himself merely to an affirmative or negative answer, and that he may be encouraged to make adjustments. We continue:
Provided that before determining any such appeal the Minister shall, if required either by the highway authority or by the applicant, cause a local inquiry to be held in public, and in giving his decision upon any such appeal the Minister shall publish a summary of the facts as found by him and of his reasons for the decision.
The House will, therefore, appreciate that the majority of the desiderata asked for by the Standing Committee upstairs are hereby granted. There is provision for a local inquiry at which local knowledge can be brought into play. There can be a public statement of the case, expert witnesses can be called, documents can be put in, and so we meet the local point and also the public point—because it was charged against the original wording that the Minister might reach his decision in secret. The Amendment would impose upon him the necessity of having the case heard in public and further he must publish a summary of the facts and give reasons for his decisions. These can eventually be taken
into account by other highway authorities as guidance and will give the appellant the satisfaction of knowing the grounds upon which his appeal has been decided.
I agree that this procedure might not be so satisfactory if the Minister had an interest which prevented him discharging his duties impartially, but the Minister has only one interest, one duty and one power, and that is to see that the will of Parliament, as embodied in this Measure, is carried into effect; that indiscriminate building and laying out of means of access at the wrong points and it may be at dangerous points shall no longer be permitted, and that these matters shall be under expert supervision by the highway authority and subsequently by the Minister—no consent being refused, be it borne in mind, except upon the basis of compensation being paid. I do not think I overstate the case in claiming for this Amendment the support of all Members who base themselves upon the report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. I have not only the report of the Committee itself to support me, but I have the letter from the Chairman of the Committee which repeats in the clearest possible language, what I imagined could not have been expressed with greater lucidity than in the words of the report itself.
The major issue, therefore, is: Is this an administrative matter or not? I do not think there can be two opinions upon it. The construction of a road and the laying out of means of access upon it are purely expert and administrative matters with which we are specifically entrusted in this Bill, and I think the answer upon that point is bound to be conclusive. There are, however, certain minor arguments in connection with this Amendment which it might appear discourteous of me to neglect now that I am upon the subject. There are 1,050 petty sessions courts and 184 courts of quarter sessions. Each court deals with a limited area, and in connection with this matter the court would not only be dealing with a limited area but with a singe application, out of relation to all other applications. It would simply have to look at the question of whether or not it was reasonable that a particular applicant, who might have put
forward a heart-rending case, should be allowed to build or make means of access. The court cannot have a vision of the road as a whole, running right through the county. Its vision is confined.
Further, there is no publication of the decision of the petty sessions or quarter sessions. There is no official report and therefore no body of principles can be laid down. It answers the question, "yea" or "nay." It says to the applicant, "you may have access" or "you may not." But why he may or may not have access is not stated, and the court next door will not have the benefit of the judgment of its neighbour nor can the courts of the country as a whole build up any uniform practice. No reasons are given which can guide either applicants or authorities. Then think of the injustice to the poor appellant. He is going before a lay tribunal of magistrates, and if he succeeds before the magistrates, the highway authority is bound to take him to the quarter sessions because they are charged by Parliament with the duty of securing the safety of the road. That is their responsibility and they must go to the ultimate court in discharge of it, and with them must go the appellant. He must either appear in person, if he has the necessary skill to argue a technical case and convince a lay tribunal against the evidence of experts, or he must appear by counsel, except in cases where no counsel is available and where he may employ a solicitor.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he would have to appear by counsel at petty sessions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is trying to draw a distinction between what I am saying and the facts, but I am advised that such an applicant must appear at the quarter sessions by counsel except in a case where counsel is not available, and where it is customary to allow appearance by a solicitor. I am glad to notice that I appear to have the assent of some of the legal brethen of my hon. Friend to that statement. There is bound to be expense not only in the presentation of the case but in the calling of witnesses before a lay tribunal where-as
in the case of the Minister's tribunal, the inspector who holds the inquiry is a man with knowledge of this subject who can quickly digest the facts.

Mr. FOOT: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that no expense would be incurred in bringing witnesses or instructing solicitor and counsel before a Ministerial inquiry?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know why my hon. Friend always prefaces these interruptions by asking "do I really say this or that," unless he is preparing to represent one of these applicants. I really do say that the applicant in such a case would have to controvert the expert evidence of the highway authority before the lay tribunal. He is not appearing before an expert and he must controvert the expert evidence. I beg of my hon. Friend to believe that I do not, in the least, desire to over-state this part of the case. I am dealing with the argument raised in Committee upstairs, and it will be for the House to decide. I am stating the other side of the argument which was presented. There is also delay in the case of the quarter sessions which, as their name implies, normally meet quarterly. There is not that room for compromise which there is in the Amendment, and I would point out that under the Private Acts compromise in these matters is nearly always reached. There has not been a single appeal to the Minister under those Acts which allow an appeal. It is usual in the locality to compromise and to say "you may not have access here but you may have it somewhere else". That is the course which the Minister normally would pursue but the petty sessional court and the quarter sessional court would have less opportunity of effecting a compromise.
Finally, it was said by those who criticised the original proposal in the Bill, that there were still certain administrative functions vested in quarter sessions. That is true. They are not of vast range, but there are some chiefly surviving from the days when the court of quarter sessions was the county highway authority. But we are here concerned with these particular administrative functions in a modern State. Parliament has expressed its desire to put a check on what I may term
the present licence. It has devolved responsibility upon the highway authority and the Minister for making this Measure work. If Parliament wishes for results it must trust its own Minister, who is responsible to it. There is no question of law or fact, except as embodied in this, Bill. The law will be that henceforward no one has the right to build or make means of access within certain widths without the consent of the highway authority, which consent is given upon expert technical grounds and not ad misericordiam, given with a view to the road as a whole. As I say, we are concerned here with these administrative functions in the modern State. I put it with as much seriousness as I can command. If the House were to reject our Amendment it would not have passed an effective piece of legislation; it would merely have recorded a pious ambition.

5.15 p.m.

Sir A. WILSON: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has explained very lucidly the difference between him and the Committee upstairs. His main point, which, if he will pardon me for saying so, he has made much more cogently than a fortnight ago, is that quarter and petty sessions are not suitable tribunals for trying any quasi-administrative or quasi-judicial question. The submission that I wish to make is that that is not in fact the case, and that the Minister would gain very great authority and influence throughout England if he would take the magistrates into his confidence, enlist their support by hortatory circulars rather than by public rebukes, encouraging them to take every step in their power to forward and use them as agents for giving effect to policy as laid down in this House. [Interruption.] Perhaps the word "agents" is an overstatement, but the policy of the Government, for example, as laid down in the Licensing Acts of 1901 and 1910 has been applied by quarter sessions not merely in a judicial capacity, but in an administrative capacity as the agents of this House. It is more a matter of administrative than of purely judicial acts. The Royal Commission on Licensing paid a well deserved tribute to the efficiency of quarter sessions and licensing justices in giving effect to the general policy laid down in the relative Acts of Parliament. The Public Health Acts from 1875 onwards have been administered almost
exclusively by petty and quarter sessions. There are scores of enactments which require reference to petty sessions in case of any dispute or difficulty, and I have yet to hear that petty or quarter sessions have failed in their duty thereunder.
There is nothing in England which is more tenaciously maintained than public rights of way, and they have been maintained, not by the Minister, but by quarter sessions. The highway authorities, as the right hon. Gentleman said, till about 1870 were the petty and quarter sessions; whatever beauty there is left in England we owe to their pious endeavours. It is they who maintained the rights of way, it is they who prevented encroachments, and even now—I doubt whether the Ministry of Transport is aware of it—it is for the petty sessions to prevent any encroachment within 15 feet of the roadway, apart altogether from any rights of property, it is for petty sessions to prohibit any quarry being opened within 50 feet of the middle of the road, and it is for petty sessions to insist on the rights of the public, as against the private owner, to verges. Until Parliament gave the Postmaster-General overriding powers, no one could have put up a post or any obstruction upon the verge of any highway without the permission of petty sessions, which would have been withheld if it created an obstruction.
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of his overriding authority as the agent of Parliament to give effect to its own Acts, and of the necessity for a single bureaucratic organisation acting uniformly throughout the United Kingdom, but I submit that uniformity is in fact impracticable, and were it practicable it would be undesirable. What we want is to have local interest aroused and local good will enlisted. Instead of depending upon a highway authority arbitrarily imposing its will upon innumerable individuals, we should get government by consent, which is far more likely to be attained by using the existing judicial tribunals which are the ultimate source of justice for the ordinary man in the street in 99 cases out of 100. There have been very few appeals from petty sessions to quarter sessions under the Highway Acts in the past 30 years, and that is because the petty sessions have acted
fairly and reasonably. The right hon. Gentleman says they do not record their decisions. If he will look in any legal work dealing with the highways of England, he will see hundreds of cases decided at quarter sessions, dealing with every aspect of highway administration and law, and those decisions are, as I understand, not less binding upon other courts than any decision of higher courts. I am confident that if my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General had been practising recently in quarter sessions, he would have found reason to admire rather than to criticise the suitability of those bodies as tribunals to deal with the practical administration of the law.
The Minister of Transport is fortunate in having the assistance of Jove's thunder from Printing House Square. He has brought to his aid Sir Leslie Scott, who, it is true, was chairman for a time of the Ministers' Powers Committee, but he is also a leading and enthusiastic member of the Council for the Preservation of Rural Amenities, and I regret that when he wrote to the "Times" he did not mentioned his dual capacities. The "Times" has added its thunder to the official cry for removing these cases from the judiciary and placing them in the hands of a tribunal, namely, the Minister, removed by several steps from the public at large. My hon. Friends who criticise my advocacy of the use of the magistrates throughout the country for this purpose are, I think, doing themselves as well as the magistrates an injustice. I believe that the future of this country, the future of democracy, depends largely upon the devolution of authority as far as may be from Whitehall, which is impossible unless we devolve authority not only to the county and rural district councils, but also to the magistracy. Strengthen them by all means, widen the basis of selection, but do not take from, but rather add to, their powers. The more power you give them, the greater the authority they will exercise and the greater their willingness to co-operate with every Ministry that appeals to them.
A visiting inspector coming down, whose report, I gather, will not be published, but only such portions of it as the Minister may think fit, is no real substitution. Every lawyer who has had experience of questions arising between the Ministry of Transport, county councils,
and third parties knows that the Minister's representation has in fact, in the words—I quote from memory—of the Minister's Powers Committee, an unconscious bias in favour of the view of county council. These authorities are bound by the closest of financial ties. The Minister of Transport offers, say, 75 per cent. and the county council is willing to give 25 per cent., a great scheme is going through, and the chance of the private individual against this convergence of official opinion in favour of some particular act which may have, to use my right hon. Friend's own words, heartrending consequences to the individual, is small indeed. Each time that that is done there is a fresh crop of a fresh feeling of resentment against elected authorities, and against Parliament, and a fresh feeling that the private individual is in the grip of a machine and that all that matters is efficiency, efficiency from the point of view of the particular Minister, but not from the point of view of the smooth working of the little microcosm community of which that man is a part.
There are no ordnance maps. The expense of getting copies of maps will be prohibitive, but if the tribunal is the local magistracy, they can walk out from the court, jump into a car or a trap, go a couple of miles, see the site, discuss it on the spot, and, having discussed it, reach an agreed compromise between the highway authority and the individual. That in nine cases out of ten is how such business is done. The thing is done on the spot, and that is why petty sessions work so well to-day.
In excluding the matters now under discussion from the jurisdiction of petty and quarter sessions, I believe the Minister, acting, I am sure, in the supposed interests of efficiency, is depriving himself of the active and valuable assistance of a great body of men who are far more interested than he perhaps imagines in the lives and limbs of the people among whom they live, whose decisions must be reached in open court, in the presence of the Press and in the presence of the local inhabitants, who have to justify themselves not only in public but also thereafter in private for many a year to come, and who, living on the spot, will have to answer for their misdeeds in future years. Compare them with an inspector from Whitehall, a man
unknown in the locality, who comes down, makes an inquiry, and whose report may or may not be accepted by the Minister.
I agree that the Amendment now proposed by the Minister is a great advance on what he has done before, and I am grateful to him and thank him for it. I only wish he had thought of it before, because if he had, the Clause that I should have put down would taken a different form, but I should still have pressed for the rights of the individual, when there is a really large financial stake at issue, to appeal to some court, in order that the Minister may be kept strictly within the law when purporting to act in a quasi-judicial manner upon a matter which is bound to have an effect upon scores of thousands of people. This Bill, little as I like it, will affect scores of thousands of small men, tenants of an acre of half an acre, running along scores of roads; it will affect smallholders, and others. We shall find it far more unpopular than many Members of this House think. The best thing we can do, as good Parliamentarians, is to get out from under, to transfer the odium as far as we can to the petty and quarter sessions, and to let them take the burden. They are not elected but appointed persons, and they will stand the strain far better than elected person can.
This Bill will be very unpopular in practice, mainly owing to the great delays that will occur. The Minister will no doubt secure the assent of this House to his Amendment, but I would ask him to weigh well the delays which many local authorities anticipate will occur in obtaining consents under this Bill. It may mean that Public Enemy No. 1 will be, in his own words in Committee, for many months to come be the builder of a house, and to add the word "speculative" does not detract from his importance to the community. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in drafting this Amendment, he has given due weight to the importance attached by the Ministers' Powers Committee report itself to the publication of the inspector's report in the form in which it reaches the Minister, and not in the form in which the Minister might wish to see it published, having regard to the need for uniformity which he has so frequently stressed in addressing this House.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not bringing the Debate to a very high level by saying that he wants to transfer his own responsibility to the magistrates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to carry the burden of his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, whether a Bill is popular or unpopular. I am sorry that the Minister did not put up in the Committee the fight which he has put up to-day. If he had been half as keen in Committee as he was this afternoon many of the Amendments which were carried there would not have been carried. We did not like the Amendment which was carried against the Government, and we voted for the Minister because we did not believe that any good purpose could be served by all these appeals being sent to petty sessions and from there to quarter sessions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) said there would be inevitable delay in the ordinary inquiry, but there would be greater delay in the legal inquiries, and surely the people concerned in the legal inquiry would not know the local position anything like as well as the people who would be there on behalf of the highway authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is my opinion, and I have had something to do with this kind of thing. The Minister's Amendment, so far as I can see, will meet with greater acceptance by people generally and by the highway authorities.
It is a question whether the owners of land shall be a higher authority than the highway authority. We ought not to allow them to be, because the highway authority consists of people elected to carry out a certain responsibility, and they are doing it to the best of their ability in the interests of the whole community. Under this Amendment an aggrieved person will have the right of appeal to the Minister. A local inquiry will be held and both sides will have the opportunity of placing the facts before a special inspector appointed by the Minister. That will certainly be a much better way than having the case fought out before a court of summary jurisdiction, and every opportunity will be given for a pacific settlement of the dispute. The Amendment ought never to have
passed upstairs. The question is whether a dispute shall be heard by a local inquiry and the responsibility for a decision thrown upon the Minister as a Member of Parliament responsible to Parliament. I may be old-fashioned, but I maintain that a Minister should be responsible to Parliament for his particular Department and that that responsibility ought not to be shared out between him and legal authorities in the country. A Minister should be a person with authority and responsibility.
I am pleased with the statement of the Minister to-day. It justifies the position he has taken up and the vote given by the Opposition in Committee. His Amendment is in the best interests of the local authority and of any aggrieved person. We want the most expeditious way of settling these matters and the way that will give the greatest satisfaction to the largest number of people. It is not a question entirely between the highway authority and the landowner. There is in between the public interest, and that is often left out entirely. The Minister has taken the right line in moving the Amendment, for it will cover all the difficulties and will not relieve the Minister of the responsibility for the burdens of his office.

5.35 p.m.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) started his remarks by complaining that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) had not put the Debate on a very high level by suggesting the shifting of the burden to other shoulders. The House will be glad that the events of 1931 have borne fruit, even though belatedly. The Minister, in recommending this Amendment to the House, suggested that it was in some way a compromise, but I cannot see on what grounds he bases that suggestion. The original Bill stated that the matter shall be determined by the Minister. The Amendment to-day says, the Minister:
may make such order as he thinks fit, and the decision of the Minister shall be final.
Really, the compromise is that before the Minister makes a decision he shall take the trouble to sift the evidence, to make some sort of inquiry, and to make some statement as to the grounds on
which the decision is taken. Surely we may assume that no Minister in the exercise of his authority would take a decision of any magnitude without making close local inquiry. The so-called compromise, therefore, boils itself down to the fact that the Minister's decisions and his reasons for the decisions are to be published. I realise that that is some advance on the original position, but it is very far removed from the advance that we thought we had obtained—some of us after years of effort—in this direction in Committee upstairs. It makes us wonder what exactly the duties and the functions of a Standing Committee upstairs are.

Mr. T. SMITH: To represent our constituents.

Captain WATERHOUSE: As the hon. Member says, it is to represent our constituents—not one section of them, but the whole of them, whether they be owners or occupiers, or users of the roads. It is for the whole of my constituents that I am speaking this afternoon, and not for any sectional interests whatever. The decision upstairs was not taken on a snap vote; there was no question of a hurried decision or of inadequate discussion. The Minister, presumably, was briefed by the whole force of his Department, but we in our small way had gone into the matter as best we could. The decision was taken after a long and close discussion of the rights and wrongs of the case. The Lord President of the Council, when he was Prime Minister, invited the House to become a Council of State, but it seems to me that we are only a Council of State so long as we agree with the Minister. As soon as ever the Council ventures to offer a halting opinion in a contrary sense to that of the Minister the whips are cracked and the old ministerial coach goes creaking and rumbling along in the accustomed way, and the Council of State is completely forgotten.
The Minister has been bold in the exercise of his duties. He has been criticised, but he has been bold and not afraid of taking a new line; and if he had taken a new line on this question he would have earned gratitude of a great section of constitutional thought in the country as a whole. If he had been an entirely free man, I am. Sure
that he would have taken that line, but he found that his Bill was enmeshed in the gears and pulleys of his Department, and he was dragged back into the old vortex of ministerial autocracy. I would remind my right hon. Friend of his antecedents in the Liberal party who thought it was their glory to stand up for the rights of individuals. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends do so a great deal more than the section of the Liberal party that sits on the other side of the House. As he had still some vestige of the old Liberal doctrine left in him, I hoped, before he brought in a Bill of this sort, he would have taken the trouble to re-read that excellent book by Lord Hewart called "The New Despotism." I will venture to make one or two quotations from that book, for, if the Minister has read it, I am afraid that he has forgotten the good advice that is contained therein. The Lord Chief Justice writes thus:
If it appears that this system"—
that is, the bureaucratic system—
springs from and depends upon a deep-seated official conviction, which in turn it nourishes and strengthens by each successive manifestation of its vigour, that this, when all is said and done, is the best and most scientific way of ruling the country, the consequences, unless they are checked, must be in the highest degree formidable.
This declaration, coming from such a source, is one that the Minister cannot disregard. Lord Hewart goes on to compare this bureaucratic tendency with the rule in this country during the days of what he calls "the least wise kings" and says that it is now
to subordinate Parliament"—
I ask the Minister to notice that, and not to forget that Standing Committee A is an integral part of Parliament—
to evade the Courts, and to render the will, or the caprice, of the executive unfettered and supreme.
That is a thing to be avoided at all costs, says Lord Hewart, and that, to my mind, is exactly what the Minister is falling into at this juncture. The Lord Chief Justice might have read this Bill before he wrote his book, for he deals with such a compromise as the Minister has made when he writes:
It is sometimes enacted that, before the Minister comes to a decision, he shall hold a public enquiry, at which the interested parties are entitled to adduce evidence, and be heard. But that provision is no real
safeguard, because the person who has the power of deciding is in no way bound by the report or the recommendation of the person who holds the enquiry, and may entirely ignore the evidence which the enquiry brought to light.
I hope the Minister will not argue that these remarks of the Lord Chief Justice have nothing to do with this particular case and that we are dealing really with other topics, because the Lord Chief Justice gives two definite examples of what he considers to be a misuse of this power. They both come out of the Town Planning Act of 1925. The first one is in Section 1 (3) and the second in Section 7 (3). In the first the Minister took power to decide whether any land was or was not land likely to be used for building purposes. That would definitely be an administrative point in the false arguments that the Minister adduced this afternoon. The other provision is even clearer. It is that
if any question arises whether any building or work contravenes a town planning scheme, the Minister shall decide.
If instead of town planning one writes road planning we have the exact case set out in this Section. It seems to me that by this compromise the Minister has put himself in the position of the Home Secretary who, when a man who considered himself innocent appealed to him against a sentence of hanging, said, "We will compromise and drown him."
I want to appeal to the Minister on another ground which I consider far the most serious. It is one which is happily little mentioned in this House or outside. We all have the highest regard for the efficiency and integrity of the Civil Service, but we have to realise that, although we have a natural and very healthy bias towards honesty in this country, our public services have not always held the position that they hold to-day. A few generations ago they were little better than the services on the Continent and in America, against which we constantly hear charges levied. It is to a large extent this House which, by always insisting that the subject shall have an appeal to the courts, has led to the permanent and most praiseworthy efficiency and integrity of our Civil Service to-day. Let the Minister weigh these possibilities most carefully in his mind, because this is something so valuable to us that by no act of his should he run the risk of
jeopardising what we have gained with so much difficulty.
There have been letters in the Press to which the Minister has referred. His propaganda or his publicity department has obviously been fairly active. Wires have been pulled, and up has got first one little puppet and then another little puppet to say his piece. We have read those letters with a good deal of interest. I read one this morning from the vice-chairman of the Highways Committee of the County Councils Association. He ends a very interesting letter with the remark:
The County Councils Association seem well content to accept the Minister as the ultimate arbiter.
That is a most enlightening remark, but I do not think it can help the Minister very much. I am in some little doubt whether the writer was serious or was humourous in that remark. If he meant it to be amusing I agree that it was funny, but if he meant it seriously it is one of the best jokes I have ever heard in my life, because here is one who comes along so certain of having the favour of the judge who is going to judge him that he could not wish for another. I am not representing a highways committee but representing the general body of the public, and it is on the ground of the equity which ought to be meted out to the general body of the public that I make this appeal to my right hon. Friend.
There has been another letter from Sir Leslie Scott, a gentleman who must carry a great deal of weight as a lawyer; but it is not on his personal merits as a great lawyer that he writes. At one time he was chairman of the committee which considered Ministerial Powers, and it seems to me that in that letter, which the Minister has read, he assumes to himself the power of interpreting the findings of the committee over which he presided. I think that is only very little less objectionable than the powers which the Minister wants to assume to interpret the Measure which we are passing to-day. That committee sat and produced its findings. On that committee were great constitutionalists like Lord Bridgeman, and great bulwarks of the law like Sir Roger Gregory; but, on the other side, there were ladies like Miss Ellen Wilkinson, who in an interesting note to that report said she thought the powers of Ministers were too few and far between, that she would like to see them much wider, that
she did not agree that they were getting more powerful but thought it a crying shame that they were not made a great deal more powerful. This committee presented an agreed report, and their findings were therefore most emphatically a compromise between the extreme left and the constitutional views of the middle right. Let us examine some phrases of this report, from which the Minister himself has quoted at considerable length. They quote a judgment by Lord Campbell in which he said:
It is of the last importance that the maxim that no man is to be a judge in his own cause should be held sacred. And that is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party but applies to a cause in which he has an interest.
Commenting on that judgment, the committee make this most pertinent remark on page 78 of the report:
We think it is clear that bias from strong and sincere conviction as to public policy may operate as a more serious disqualification than pecuniary interest.
Again they say:
The bias to which a public-spirited man is subjected if he adjudicates in any case in which he is interested on public grounds is more subtle and less easy for him to detect and resist.
Does the Minister honestly want to assure the House that he has no bias in this matter? If he does I must seriously consider whether I can vote for his salary when it comes up next year. He is put in his present position to have a bias, to have an interest in roads and road users. It is right and proper that he should have a bias, and I am perfectly certain, from what I have seen of him in his Ministerial capacity, that he above all other Ministers of Transport has a real bias, and that bias is to improve the roads and to make them better and more serviceable. It is a proper bias, but it is a real bias, and a bias which, to my mind, is a sufficient bar under the findings of this very Committee which he is quoting. In another place the Committee say:
We think, however, that before Parliament entrusts a Minister with the power and duty of giving quasi-judicial decisions as part of a legislative scheme Parliament ought to consider whether the nature of his interest as Minister in the carrying out of the functions to be entrusted to him by the Statute may be such as to disqualify him from acting with the requisite impartiality.
Then the report goes on to differentiate between administrative and quasi-judicial functions. The Minister tried to persuade the House that in this matter his functions would be entirely administrative, but it is not so. The report sets out, on page 81, that matters into which inquiry has to be made, where the decision of the Minister is not absolutely arbitrary, become not administrative but quasi-judicial, and therefore they come very definitely within the meaning of the words of this report. I ask the Minister to turn to page 99 of this report, where the findings are set out under the happy title "Vigilant observance of the principles of natural justice." I am sure that that heading will appeal to the Minister. It is obvious that he and his Department have studied this report in putting these proposals on the paper. There are four recommendations. The second of them is that each of the parties should be given an opportunity of stating his case. The third is that any party affected by the decision should have the fullest information. The fourth is that a reasoned judgment should be given. The Minister has conformed to all three recommendations, but for some extraordinary reason has left out number one. Possibly he did not notice it. I shall read it in full, because it is so extremely important in this argument:
In future legislation Parliament should proceed on the principle that no Minister (in which word we include any officer of a Minister acting under his orders) should give a judicial decision in any dispute in which the Minister has the kind of Departmental interest described in paragraph 3.
In paragraph 3 there are the words about bias to which I have referred:
If such cases: appear likely to arise, Parliament should provide for determination of the dispute by a ministerial tribunal functioning independently of the Minister.
Then there is another short paragraph emphasising that point. It seems to be clear, if we are to work on the basis of that report, that the report is in favour at any rate of some of our proposals if not of the whole of them. I urge the Minister, if he cannot accept the words as fixed by the standing Committee upstairs, to see whether it is not possible now, while the House is still sitting, for his advisers to devise some means of setting up an independent tribunal which shall set at rest the fears, groundless
perhaps, but real, of so many people in all parts of the country who are going to be examined and whose rights are going to be curtailed under this Bill.
We do not object, and the people themselves do not object, to their rights being curtailed when they know that that curtailment is for the general benefit of the community, and when they know they will have an opportunity to state their case fairly before a fair and impartial tribunal; but what neither they nor anybody else in this country can stand is the idea that either they will not have a right to state their case or that they will not have stated their case before a judge as impartial as one might hope and expect to find in a British court. Therefore, I make this final appeal to my right hon. Friend, not only in a matter which is of sectional interest, but in what I believe to be a matter vital to the whole well-being of the constitution of this country—let him see now whether he cannot do something for us, so that when on Friday he goes away on his holiday he will feel that he has struck one blow, at any rate, for a principle which he used to hold dear.

5.56 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have listened to a witty and well argued speech, and I think the House does quite right to scrutinise very closely any extensions of power claimed by the Government. The country has always been suspicious of bureaucratic tendencies. We have always disliked the droit administratif, the French idea of officials being over and above the law and Parliament being outside the courts, and it is right that constant publicity should be given to the views which have been expressed. But I think the hon. Member was a little unfair, in fact, most unfair, to Sir Leslie Scott. He is a very distinguished lawyer and has been Solicitor-General, and he presided over this committee with skill and judgment, and as chairman of it he is entitled to express the views of that committee—in his personal capacity. I am not suggesting that he represents the whole committee, but he is entitled in his personal capacity, after having sat as chairman of the committee and weighed the evidence and given this very strong report, to express his views as to the application of this report to this par-
ticular case. To speak of him acting as a mere puppet to the right hon. Gentleman is hardly a worthy observation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I think it should be withdrawn.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I think I said—I do not actually remember my words—that one paid considerable regard to the opinion of Sir Leslie Scott as a legal luminary, but he had no right to seek now to interpret the findings of his Committee. I think I did use the word "puppet," but I did not mean that in any derogatory sense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but merely in the sense that the Minister had used certain ways, as I believe, to get into touch with these people.

Sir P. HARRIS: Anyone who knows Sir Leslie Scott knows that he is the last person in respect of whom one could pull strings to influence his opinions. If he did express his views they were genuine views, which ought to be taken into account, owing to his great authority as a great lawyer, as a former Solicitor-General and as chairman of this particular Committee. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentlman and those who sympathise with him of the origin of this Bill. For months the late Prime Minister was pressed from all sides of the House to bring in a ribbon development Bill, by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and others, in order to deal with this vital and urgent problem. He quite properly replied—I would remind hon. Members of this, because it ought to be taken into account in our examination—that he could not deal with that difficult problem without attacking vested interests. That is why such a long and unfortunate delay occurred before the presentation of the Bill.
You cannot deal with this problem without to some extent injuring private rights. If people ought to be allowed to do what they like with their own and to make as much profit out of it as they can, the Bill is an interference with them, and they will oppose every Clause of it because it will qualify and limit private rights. If you are promptly and quickly to deal with this urgent problem, there must be a certain amount of interference with the rights of individuals. No one is more sensitive than I am that individuals should have a right to state their case. There was a similar discussion,
and a very long one, upon the same issue, on the Floor of the House upon the Housing Bill. The suggestion was made that an official of a Government Department was not a proper person to adjudicate between private interests and the point of view of a local authority, because he was biased. I proposed a way out of that difficulty. Instead of the official being appointed by the Government Department concerned, in this case the Minister of Transport and in that case the Minister of Health, he might be appointed by the Lord Chancellor or some independent authority.
I speak with some personal knowledge on this matter when I say that departmental officials do try to work impartially, and to hold the balance evenly between the local authority and the individual. My experience is that the local authority is often at fault. The officials are inclined to weight the balance in favour of the individual and against the authority, because the natural instinct of any tribunal is to look after the interest of the weaker power of the individual against the powerful, elected local authority. Be that as it may, there is undoubtedly a feeling in the House that as the official appointed to do this work is appointed by the Government Department concerned he may be too likely to take the point of view of the Department. If that be the case, the way out is not to challenge the whole method of tackling the problem, but to arrange that the official shall be appointed by some other Government Department and preferably that of the Lord Chancellor.
I beg the House not to adhere to the words in the Bill as it came from the Committee, because they will, I believe, paralyse the Bill, which is not going to do the big things that some people believe. The work is going to be difficult, and it will involve on the one hand a very large sum of money in compensation, and on the other a lot of local authorities, which at the present time are very slow, being put into action. I very much doubt, whatever the Minister desires, whether local authorities in many parts of the country will carry out the work with energy and initiative. If you are going to put in this fifth-wheel to the coach, you will make the operation
of it very slow. If it has to go through all the slow procedure of a court of law, as suggested in the Bill, we might as well have saved cur energies in the Committee instead of sitting up there afternoon after afternoon. We might as well have left things as they were and the law as it was. I beg the. House to support the Minister in what I think is a very fair piece of compromise.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: The Minister is in a difficulty here, because he has to attempt to reverse the decision which was taken by a very full Committee and by a substantial majority. He has not made his task easier by the speech which he delivered. He has said that this is purely a question of administration and not of law. He said: "The law is here; what more do you want?" If he took any Act of Parliament he could quote it and say: "The law is here"; accordingly, the Larceny Act could be administered by a Ministerial official and not by a court of justice, because "the law is here." I quite conceive that, owing to the Minister's action, (6) of Sub-section (4) is an administrative question and I am quite satisfied with the Minister's new Amendment so far as it concerns that. If the Minister will recall the history of the Bill of which he is the fond parent, he will remember that in the original Bill the two Sub-clauses were justiciable and not administrative. They were entirely questions of actual fact, and those two Sub-clauses still remain in the present Bill.
If the Minister keeps to his Amendment he will set up his official as the arbiter on matters which are questions of law and fact—mixed law and fact—and not questions of administration at all. Before the Bill was altered in Committee, those Sub-clauses applied to a dispute between a highway authority and an individual on a, question whether a means of access was required for agricultural purposes. The House will appreciate that if once it is established that a means of access is an agricultural means of access, it is exempt from Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. That still remains in the Bill as it has come from the Committee; still there may be a dispute (it is provided for in Sub-section (4)), as to whether a Means of access is an agricultural means of access or not. I suppose that officials of
the Ministry are to determine, under the Minister's Amendment of this Subsection, the question of law involved.
Another dispute provided for in the original Bill, was whether any condition was necessary for securing that means of access should be used for agricultural purposes only. That still remains, and is entirely a justiciable question and not a question of administration. I will not for a moment argue whether questions of administration should be determined by a court of petty sessions or of quarter sessions. They are entirely separate matters, to be determined in a different way. But it is going to be a very dangerous inroad if the Minister is to set up his officials as judges on questions of law which are in dispute between a highway authority and an individual. Many officials of highway authorities, owing to the services which they have rendered, have been promoted to the Ministry of Transport, and it may be a very awkward thing if those gentlemen have to determine disputes between what were their own highway authorities and individuals. The Minister said he objected to quarter sessions because quarter sessions met so seldom, only once a quarter, but since the Summary Jurisdiction Act was passed last year quarter sessions meet for appeal Purposes when there are sufficient appeals for them to hear. The force of that argument of his no longer exists. If you are to have a judicial tribunal, it may be better if it is the quarter sessions alone and not the petty sessions. I trust that the Minister will consider how far some of these questions are justiciable, and that he will allow a judicial tribunal to decide them.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Not for the first time in this Parliament the only support which has been accorded to the Government on rather controversial questions has come from Members of the Opposition. I would like to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend. In the Committee upstairs he showed great courtliness and great readiness to compromise. Will he not consider the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) and try to arrive, before the Bill becomes law, at some compomise which will meet the widespread feeling of unrest in many quarters of the House? Since the Com-
mittee met the Minister has enlisted on his side a certain amount of heavy artillery; the "Times" published two leading articles headed with, I thought, the rather ponderous phrase "Mistakes to be Remedied." They were to be put right by my right hon. Friend who, in his earlier and more sprightly days, has often incurred the opposition of that newspaper, but he has not been much influenced by those articles. There was also a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. He is also the Chairman of the Council for the Preservation of Rural Amenities, and we were in great doubt whether, when he wrote that letter, he was speaking in his judicial capacity or in his administrative capacity—a point which will be appreciated by my right hon. Friend, who quoted at length from the Committee's Report to show that there is a hard-and-fast definition between administrative and judicial questions. On page 81 the Committee say quite emphatically:
Generally speaking, a quasi-judicial decision is only an administrative decision, some stage or some element of which possesses judicial characteristics.
The fulminations in other parts of the report against the Minister's clothing himself with those judicial powers therefore do apply to those quasi-administrative and judicial decisions which are only administrative decisions.
I cannot claim to speak with legal authority but, reading the Bill as an ordinary intelligent layman, I think it will prevent certain cases, particularly access to the road, or building, being made without the consent of the highway authority, whose consent must not be withheld unreasonably. The question whether that consent has been unreasonably withheld is most certainly a proper subject for judicial decision. I cannot see any difference in that case, and many cases are already a subject for petty sessional trial, arising out of the Highways Acts, the Public Health Act, or, the most perfect parallel, footpath diversion. The right hon. Gentleman will probably think this very trivial, local and rustic question scarcely fit to be considered in what he calls this age of the modern State. If the modern State means the substitution of bureaucratic justice for the justice of the courts, I am more than ever sorry that I was born in a modern age. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend, who, I am certain, on reflection will agree with
us, is likely to add one more pillar to the numerous pillars that have already been erected substituting ministerial justice for the justice of the courts.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I shall not detain the House for very long, after the admirable speech to which we have just listened. I was rather astonished at the quotations given by the Minister from the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, to which we have heard so many references in this discussion. Surely, if the Minister is going to rely on the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, and the distinction there made between judicial and quasi-judicial questions, we should expect that the procedure which he himself proposes would be in accordance with the provisions of that Report, but it is perfectly clear from the Amendment that it is nothing of the kind. The proviso in the Amendment reads as follows:
Provided that before determining any such appeal the Minister shall, if required either by the highway authority or by the applicant, cause a local inquiry to be held in public, and in giving his decision upon any such appeal the Minister shall publish a summary of the facts as found by him and of his reasons for the decision.
The words are: "a summary of the facts as found by him." It is not, the House will observe, a summary of the facts as found by the person who holds the inquiry. There is a very real difference between the two. An hon. Member above the Gangway says that it is the same thing, but how can he or anyone else know that it is the same thing? There may be a difference between the view taken by the person holding the inquiry and the view taken by the person in the Ministry of Transport who actually has to come to the decision. I think that one of the reasons for the general feeling that there is against these ministerial inquiries, whether conducted by one Department or another, is that there is nothing to show that the decision which the responsible official in the Department arrives at is in accordance with the evidence taken or the views that have been formed by the other official who originally held the inquiry, and there is no provision here for the publication of the report of the inspector who holds the inquiry. On that point the Committee on Ministers' Powers was most emphatic, and I was rather disappointed that the Minister
did not quote what they had to say with regard to it. On page 105 of their report, dealing with this point, the Committee say:
We are not satisfied that an extension of the practice of giving reasons for decisions would really meet the demand for publication of inspectors' reports. The reasons with which the Minister of Health"—
in this case we may read "the Minister of Transport"—
accompanies his decisions, as illustrated by the examples furnished to us, are, in the main, reasons of policy, and the facts and arguments brought forward at the antecedent inquiry are referred to only so far as may be necessary to render the statement intelligible.
A little further down on the same page they give their conclusion on the point:
To these various arguments for and against publication we have given prolonged consideration, and on balance have come to the conclusion that publication is right. By that we do not mean that the expense of printing a long report should in every case be incurred; but that in all cases the report of the inspector should be made available to the parties concerned and to the Press, and in important cases should be officially published by the Department responsible for the inquiry.
That is a perfectly clear recommendation of the Committee whom the right hon. Gentleman quoted. It is entirely ignored in the Amendment which he is now putting before the House. He went on to level what seemed to me to be some rather peculiar criticisms against the courts referred to in the text of the Bill. He said that, when you have a hearing before a court of summary jurisdiction or a court of quarter sessions, there is no official report, and no reasons are given. But the people who give the decision are the people who have just heard the evidence—the same people. They give their decision immediately after having heard the evidence, and in the great majority of cases I think it is true to say that they give quite fully their reasons for the decision at which they arrive.
The Minister made what seemed to me to be a most extraordinary statement. He referred to the multiplicity of appeals that would be involved, and he said that the highway authority, if it were defeated in the court of summary jurisdiction, would always be bound to take the applicant to quarter sessions. Why should that be so? Why should not the highway authority, or any other official body for that matter, be ready to accept
the decision of a court of justice? We have seen a number of cases in another sphere where Government Departments have taken quite hopeless appeals to the House of Lords, and where the House of Lords in one notorious case, taken, I think, by the Post Office, said that the appeal was one which ought never to have been brought forward, because it was a, hopeless appeal both on the facts and on the law. Apparently that is the attitude which runs through Government Departments. Otherwise, why should the right hon. Gentleman have stated that in every case the highway authority would be bound to take the case on appeal to quarter sessions? Why should not they, as much as the applicant, be prepared in all reasonable cases to accept the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction?
Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of expense, and said that applicants would be put to expense if they had to go before courts of summary jurisdiction or courts of quarter sessions. I speak from a comparatively short experience of these matters, but I have appeared, and do appear occasionally, before inquiries held by Government Departments, and more or less regularly before quarter sessions; and I should have thought that the expense involved in appearing before quarter sessions would in most cases be very much less than the expense involved in appearing before a departmental inquiry. The departmental inquiry is really a much more formal matter. It is not held as a matter of course. You do not have the court sitting regularly in the district, but a special day has to be fixed, sometimes, it may be, weeks or even months ahead, and the court, or what passes for the court, has to be assembled simply for the purpose of this particular inquiry. I do not think it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to find any evidence that would justify his statement that less expense is incurred at inquiries held by Government Departments. He also referred to the question of delay. As I have said, in the case of most Government inquiries, whether in reference to slum clearance, or county boundaries, or anything of that kind, some weeks' notice has to be given, a certain procedure has to be followed, and announcements have to be published in the newspapers. The probability is that there will be far more
delay in these inquiries than would be involved in going to quarter sessions.
Finally, I would endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) about the administrative functions of quarter sessions. I entirely agree with hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that it would be better, if it could be arranged, that these matters should go straight to quarter sessions, without the intervention of a court of summary jurisdiction. It is perfectly true that even to-day courts of quarter sessions exercise very considerable administrative functions. For instance, if you want to get a licence for a lunatic asylum—scarcely a judicial matter—you have to go to quarter sessions, and you have to go to quarter sessions every year to renew it.
Then, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said, there is the question of diversion or stopping up, not only of footpaths, but of highways as well. I should have thought that that was extremely similar to the function which would have to be exercised here. It does not involve them in any difficulty; it is something that happens at both borough and county quarter sessions again and again. If you go into a county quarter sessions court at the beginning of the business, before they approach the calendar, you will probably see a number of applications to divert or stop up a footpath or a highway. These do not occasion any difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman referred to lay magistrates, but very often the gentlemen who preside over the county benches are lawyers of great experience, and in the boroughs, of course, there are the recorders, who also are trained lawyers. I have never seen a court of quarter sessions experience the slightest difficulty in making up its mind about an application to divert or stop up a footpath or a highway. For these reasons I hope that those hon. Members who supported the insertion of this provision in the Bill in Committee will be prepared to support it in the Division Lobby this afternoon.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I think the Minister cannot but feel a little disappointed at the reception that his Amendment has bad in the House. The only voices raised in support of it, other than his own,
have been that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), whose arguments I shall mention briefly in a moment, and, to a very limited extent indeed, that of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who, fortunately, has been repudiated by the very excellent speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot). We heard the hon. Baronet thundering at us instructions to "remove that bauble," and we heard the hon. Member for Dundee asking us to put it back again.
The real support for the Minister's Amendment, which has come from the Socialist party, is understandable enough. They, quite frankly, do not believe in liberty, and never have believed in it, and the hon. Member for Wigan made that perfectly clear in his speech. He said it was monstrous that Ministers should shelve their responsibilities by allowing the subject to go to the courts—that it was a horrible thing that the courts should intervene between the beneficent work of the Minister and the unfortunate objections of the subject. It is perfectly true, I have no doubt, that in the form of community which is really dear to the hon. Member for Wigan no court would ever be allowed to intervene between a ministerial decision and its victim. The methods of the Cheka are exactly on those lines; no appeal is allowed between the excellent administrative decision of the Commissar and the person whom it affects. But these, I am sure, cannot be the reasons which at the moment are influencing the Minister, and I hope he will be impressed, not only by the fact that the Committee upstairs inserted this provision, but by the fact that there has been a great deal of support for the Committee's action among Members of the House who were not on the Committee. I am not now going into the question of judicial and quasi-judicial functions; that has been admirably dealt with by several previous speakers; but I do not think anybody can deny that the principle of cutting out an appeal to the courts is a bad one, except, of course, hon. Members opposite, who have already said that they do not like courts of justice.

Mr. T. SMITH: When did they say that?

Mr. WISE: The hon. Member for Wigan says that he likes justice but does not like the courts. It is possible that he has some prejudice against the legal and judicial system of this country—

Mr. PARKINSON: I have not any prejudice against the legal system, either here or in any other country, but I do like justice.

Mr. WISE: Clearly, the hon. Member has put his stick into the muddy pool, and is stirring it round gloriously. He now likes justice but he does not like to see justice administered by the courts.[Interruption.] That is what he said.

Mr. PARKINSON: If you cannot be honest in your application, at least be decent.

Mr. WISE: I must ask for your protection, Sir, against this allegation of indecency. I have not said a word that has traversed the ordinary bounds. However, possibly I have referred enough to hon. Members opposite, and I will come down to a more serious matter. For good or ill this Bill represents a very serious encroachment on the rights of public property. It may be necessary that that encroachment should take place. It may be that this evil of ribbon development is such that drastic action has to be taken to curtail the rights of the subject to do what he likes with his own property. That was the point made by the Minister, and that has on the whole been accepted by the Committee upstairs and by this House when it gave the Bill a Second Reading. But, while conceding that that right may be challenged, there is another common law right, and that is the right of access to the courts to remedy an injustice, and the fact that you have to remove one right from the subject does not justify you in removing the other. It is an extremely serious thing, I suggest to the House, to take away more than they can help at any one time. I suggest, further, that we have never removed a common law right from the subject without ultimately regretting it. I suggest again that the whole function of this House has always been to maintain common law rights and, although they are prepared to agree that this removal of the property owners' freedom to do as he wishes with his own land is necessary, I do not think we can agree
that the Minister should be allowed not only to initiate the prohibitions of his land but also to say whether they are reasonable or not reasonable.
We do not wish to throw any aspersions on the Minister or his officers. I am not even suggesting that a Ministry official would not give the most impartial hearing in one of these cases but, whether the hearing is impartial or not, people will not think it is, and therefore it is essential that a final appeal should go to someone other than the Minister himself. All the speeches that we have heard strengthen that point of view, and I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will be able to see his way to make some concession. I have consistently stood out upstairs and here for this particular provision. I cannot in justice to any principles in which I believe allow it to pass without challenging it.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: The Minister said that this is a Bill which is a new development and makes a new interference with the rights of the subject. When there is an interference of this nature for the first time, we ought to be very chary before we put any difficulty in the way of the subject whose rights are going to be interfered with. I join with those who have pleaded for an alteration in the Amendment because the Minister has shown no reason at all why we should take away the safeguard that exists, as provided by the Committee, for the protection of the liberty of the subject in the rights that he desires to exercise. There can be no doubt that no cause has yet been shown why there should be this very drastic alteration made at this hour of the day. It may very well be that there comes a time when the private interest of ownership has to be sacrificed for the greater need of the public interest. When that time arrives, every safeguard should be provided for the protection of the person whose rights are going to be interfered with. May I remind the House of a section of the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers:
In future legislation Parliament should proceed on the principle that no Minister (in which word we include any officer of a Minister acting under his orders) should give a judicial decision in any dispute in which the Minister has the kind of departmental interest described in paragraph 3. If such cases appear likely to arise, Parlia-
ment should provide for determination of the dispute by a Ministerial tribunal functioning independently of the Minister.
There can be no doubt in this case, as the Minister responsible for the safety of people on the roads, he has a certain Ministerial bias. If the Amendment is proceeded with, he, with that bias, would be the judge in a cause which is his own. As the position now stands, it is suggested that the Minister himself should make public the reasons for which he comes to a certain decision, without making any statement at all of the findings of the inspector whom he appointed to hold the inquiry. At another paragraph of this report there is a direction which is totally opposite to any such new law being made:
Each of the parties to a dispute should be given the opportunity of stating its case—not necessarily orally—and should also be given the opportunity of knowing the case which it has to meet and of answering that case if it can.
In the circumstances that are now suggested, the official of the Minister of Transport will, after holding an inquiry, come to certain decisions which are not made public, arrive at certain facts in the absence of the parties, communicate those facts to the Minister, and on those facts the Minister can make what provision he likes, provided that he makes public that decision, giving the parties no chance whatever of knowing any of the findings of the officer holding the inquiry. I am not impressed with the suggestion that, when the tribunal considers whether or not a consent has been unreasonably withheld, that is not in any way a judicial decision. I cannot accept the view that this is a matter wholly of an administrative nature, because many considerations are going to arise which must make it to a certain extent an administrative but to a very great extent a judicial decision.
That is the decision that the Minister now seeks to have the right to give, and to give finally, outside the ordinary accepted law of the land. "Under the provisions made upstairs the ordinary courts of the land are employed. There are, first of all, the petty sessions, to which all aggrieved persons can go and, if they are not satisfied, there is an appeal to quarter sessions. It has been pointed out that quarter sessions have to do a very diverse amount of work. There is no reason why the decision con-
templated by this Bill could not properly be made by quarter sessions, and I hope the Minister will not insist upon this Amendment. At a time when here and in other places we in this country and in this House are the first to criticise any surrender elsewhere of the liberty of the subject, it ill becomes us to take any step which would allow anyone to turn round and say we are losing our jealousy for the safeguarding of the rights or liberty of the subject. I wish the Minister would pay some little attention to something that was repeated in the report that we are now discussing. I should like to read one other phrase from, "The New Despotism" by the Lord Chief Justice of England:
How is it to be expected that a party against whom a decision has been given in a hole and corner fashion and without any grounds being specified should believe that he has had justice? Even the party in whose favour a dispute has been decided must in such circumstances be tempted to look upon the result as a mere piece of luck.
Has any reason been shown why, in this case of the prohibition of ribbon development, the Minister should be singled out, should be given authority to ride roughshod over the ordinary established courts of the land, which are giving day after day decisions of far more importance and more far-reaching than the decisions that have to be given under this Bill? Hon. Members may have objections to petty sessions or quarter sessions but, whatever they are, and however well founded, quarter sessions exist side by side with the established law of the land, performing very important legal functions equally, or more important than the functions which will have to be performed by the tribunal which gives a decision under this Clause. I appeal to the Minister not to insist upon this Amendment, but to pay heed to the criticism which has been aroused by Members who are jealous of the safeguards of the liberty of the subject. I should like to quote from an earlier stage in the Report of the Committee on Ministers' Powers:
Amid the cross currents and shifting sands of public life the law is like a great rock upon which a man may set his feet and be safe, while the inevitable inequalities of private life are not so dangerous in a country where every citizen knows that in the Law Courts, at any rate, he can get justice.
I hope that, in dealing with a Bill of this nature, which for the first time takes away some right of private ownership of land, he will see that a person who is aggrieved shall have the right of redress and the right of going to the ordinary courts of the land, which we believe is inviolable.

6.44 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): No one would dispute, least of all my right hon. Friend and myself, that the subject under discussion is one of great importance and interest, and we believe that, in asking the House to accept this Amendment, we are asking it to proceed on right principles, having regard to the subject-matter involved. Some people are inclined to think that, wherever two parties are found at loggerheads, there is subject-matter for a judicial decision and for the functions of a judicial tribunal. Whatever else may not be made plain by the report on Ministers' Powers, it is made abundantly plain that that is not so, and that there are two quite separate classes of disputes with which we have become familiar in the administration of our law and the carrying on of our society. There is the dispute which requires a legal decision or, to use the words I have already quoted from page 73 of the report, the dispute which involves as one of its elements the application of the law of the land. That means the application of a legal principle, whether a principle of common law or a legal principle as stated in an Act of Parliament. The other kind of dispute is called an administrative dispute dependent, to use again the words of the report, on policy. The appropriate body to decide the former is the court or a legal tribunal, and the appropriate body to decide the latter is the Minister.
Some confusion has been imported into this difficult subject by use of the phrase "quasi-judicial." When the courts applied that phrase to a Minister they did not, I think, mean that the dispute which he was deciding was really a judicial dispute. They meant that Parliament, having laid down that there was to be an investigation or an inquiry, should, in conducting the inquiry, proceed on quasi-judicial lines. The Minister should hear each side, and not tell one side something in the absence of the
other, and so on, and he should apply the ordinary principles of procedure. I do not suggest that there is not a perfectly clear line to be drawn between judicial disputes dependent upon principles of law and administrative disputes dependent upon questions of policy. I think that the reply you give to the question, "Is this an administrative or judicial dispute?" really gives the key and the answer to the subject which we are discussing this afternoon. Those who think that it is really a judicial question will oppose the Amendment, and those who are satisfied that it is really and fundamentally an administrative question of policy should, if they are logical, and certainly if they follow the general principles of this report, support my right hon. Friend. That really depends on the nature of the dispute.
We are dealing with a highway authority refusing a means of access, refusing the old common law right. What are the considerations that Parliament under this Bill enjoins the highway authority to weigh and consider in coming to that decision? Their consideration, first of all, is to the safety of life having regard to experience, what the police have found not only in their particular parts of the country, but very lively over the country as a whole, and to what the Minister and the Commissioners have before them. In the light of all that expert administrative knowledge, and of what means of access are reasonable on a particular old road hitherto passing through undeveloped land or on some newly-made road, I suggest to the House that it is purely an administrative question. It depends for its answer not upon any legal principle, but upon having sufficient familiarity with the data and with the expert opinion on the subject and applying, as an expert, that data and knowledge to the particular problem. I think that it would be difficult to find one more appropriate than the Minister in question.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), that when it comes to a question as to whether a thing is for agricultural purposes you are in rather a different category. There is a great deal more to be said for the argument which he advanced than for some of the other arguments, but I think that
he would agree that it would be administratively inconvenient to try to split up the issues on a Bill of this kind into departments, and have one procedure applying to one and another procedure apply to another; that when questions of access and safety are involved, it should go to the Minister, and that when some case of agriculture arises, possibly at the same place, you have to go to the court.
If one takes the main question, the means of access, I suggest to the House that that is a typical example of a purely administrative problem. One could safely say with equal force over the question of amenities that it was a question of policy. What has been happening everywhere? Hon. Members up and down the country have been complaining for the last three or four years, or longer, of what is going on in the way of development by the roadside. This House, in effect, has been called upon to stop it, and the Minister is to be charged with the duty. Let me take one case—a mile road, prospective development, 20 applications for access—which would result in what we call ribbon development. The highway authority refuses the applications. There are appeals to quarter sessions, which takes a particular view of the matter, and the applications are all granted. There is no control of quarter sessions. It is no good my hon. Friend saying, "Let us assume that the quarter sessions will always be right and reasonable." You have to test the efficiency of your machinery by taking cases in which they have been unreasonable.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. and learned Gentleman is the last person to assume that any court of justice would be unreasonable.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not assume that, but if you put upon a court of justice a matter which cannot be decided by legal principle they are as likely—I will not go further than that—to be unreasonable as is any other administrative office. You are putting the administrative function on them, and once we break away from rigid rules of law there is a possibility at least of this sort of thing occurring.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Would the learned Solicitor-General say that questions of workmen's compensation were
outside judicial functions and were purely administrative?

Mr. GROVES: What has that to do with it?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: We cannot carry the discussion too far. There are a great many people who think that it would be more satisfactory if questions of accident arising out of a man's employment were decided administratively by the Minister responsible to Parliament, and that then you would not have the enormous cost and expense incurred by carrying such matters to the court. I hope that I have not put my case with too great a warmth. One appreciates the principle maintained by hon. Members who oppose the Amendment. I appreciate it to the full. I only differ from them in its application to the subject matter of this case.
I would say a few words to my hon. and gallant Friend who initiated the discussion this afternoon. He suggested to my right hon. Friend that he should take the magistrates into his confidence and use them as his agents, afterwards withdrawing the word "agents" when there was noisiness on one side or the other. Gone is the impartial judicial tribunal! My hon. and gallant Friend is really taking up different ground. He is saying that they can be made use of administratively in local government. That is quite a different point from putting them forward as an impartial judicial tribunal. That principle could not possibly be incorporated in this Bill. The administrative body here is the highway authority. The logic of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend would be to wipe out the highway authority altogether and make petty sessions the administrative authority for the full purposes of the Bill. It cannot be right, Parliament having set up an administrative body of the importance of the highway authority, than to say that they have been overruled on a purely administrative matter by petty sessions acting under this Bill as an administrative authority. While welcoming the discussion and agreeing in principle with our opponents, but differing from them only in their application of the principle [...]tf this subject matter, we advise the House to accept the Amendment.

6.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTE: The learned Solicitor-General said he hoped that he had not put his case with too great warmth, and he appeared not to make his case at all. It was put in such a way as not to convince anybody in this House or anywhere else. In his closing words he said he agreed with us in principle, but not in spirit. One point he made was that he is to a great extent agreed with the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. Tinton) but did not think it desirable to have one case going to the courts and one to the Minister. Why does he not agree to give this best form of appeal, that is, the courts? The Minister in making his case at the beginning of the afternoon based it almost entirely on the report of the Commission, and he gave his case away on two points. He said, first of all, that the Amendment passed in Committee would take away all power from the highway authority and and from the Minister. Exactly the same power remains with the highway authority. The only way in which they lose any power is that their case will be judged fairly by the courts, instead of by a Minister prejudiced in their favour.
The second point in respect of which he gave his case away was when he complained that a court considering a case of this sort would consider hardship and might be moved more by the circumstances of the individual than by policy. We want to see justice done to the individual, and not the policy of the Minister carried out and enforced, or any complaints against his policy dealt with by himself. I am not personally interested in Sir Leslie Scott or the Committee, but I wish to preserve to the people of this country the right to go to courts of law when their interests are affected. I should like to know why the Minister has changed his view, as he has apparently done during the past week. It was only last week that the Solicitor-General for Scotland moved into the Bill a Clause to make the appeal to the law courts applicable to Scotland. The Minister accepted and voted for Clause 6, with the Amendment in it. If he meant to take out that Sub-section, why should he vote for the Clause?
I think I know why the Minister made up his mind to change his views. He has had strong pressure brought against
him by every official and bureaucrat in the country and he has not been strong enough to stand up against bureaucracy. I hope that the House will stand up against bureaucracy and reject the Amendment of the Minister, because I believe that it will be for the good of the country if it is rejected.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I will keep the House for only one or two minutes after the speech of the learned Solicitor-General. If I may boil down his speech into one sentence, he said that in this case and in many other cases the Department interprets the law. That is absolutely pure doctrine of the Fascist party. We in this country have always laid down that when a man is aggrieved—and I am using the words of the new Clause—in any matter which affects his person and his property, he has a right of appeal to the courts. This matter does affect his property. You are taking away, for the first time in the history of the country, a man's right to go on to the main, roads of this country. You are then saying that if he is aggrieved he has to go into a court in which the question is tried by an official coming from London, who decides the matter in the interests of the Department with which he is connected. That is the position, as I understand it. Not a single Conservative upstairs or downstairs has asked for it. Even some of the Samuelite Liberals are shocked and horrified.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What sort of Tory are you?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have always stood for liberty, which is more than some hon. Gentlemen in this House can say. The only people who have asked the Government for this, and who have pressed them here and upstairs for the position which the Government has now taken up, are the Socialist party. Well may the "Times" say that the Opposition will support them. That is the price that the Opposition has been paid. That is the price for their support all through the Bill—a nice precedent which the Socialists can use when they get into power. I would ask Conservatives not to support a complete reversal of the policy which was decided upstairs by the Committee which had the full facts before them, and time to discuss them,
in connection with the rest of the Bill. I would ask the House not to reverse the opinion of the Committee, and not to be dragged, as the Minister has been dragged, by the wretched Socialist Opposition.

7.3 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I am unwilling to give a decided vote on this matter and I am also unwilling to detain the House after the speech of the learned Solicitor-General. Two different views on this matter have already been given from these benches. We have to congratulate the party above the Gangway on the fact that they are the only party which are not divided on this subject. I look at this matter primarily from the point of view of an owner of land who will be affected by this Bill. I think I own four or five miles of highway to which this Bill is likely to apply. I should like to get back to the question as to what the issues are likely to be, and what their nature is likely to be. Are the issues primarily administrative or primarily judicial, or if there is an element of both, are they mainly administrative or mainly judicial'? One regards quarter sessions as a judicial body, and the Minister, acting on appeal from the local authority, as an administrative authority. I can visualise the sort of question that as a landowner I might want to bring up.
I see it this way: Is a certain access that I have claimed one necessary for agricultural purposes only, or one that I am likely to want to use for general purposes as well? Is the local highway authority acting unreasonably or not in requiring me to bury a certain drain, or line, or something of that kind, a certain number of feet deep in order that a road may safely go over it? It is extremely difficult for me, with such experience as I have had both of inquiries by inspectors of Government Departments and of petty and quarter sessions, to see the judicial element in matters of that kind. It seems to me that they are essentially questions for an official of the Department, who has experience of these particular matters. He knows the sort of thing that has happened and is happening all the time with regard to the sort of access which is regarded as reasonable, with regard to the sort of depth which it seems to be reasonable to require these lines and so on to be buried. It seems to me that he is the
man, with the knowledge, more likely to give a reasonable answer in my case than a petty sessional or quarter sessional court.
There is just this further element in the matter: Quarter sessions is an administrative as well as a judicial body. We know that it has practically administrative functions. It was the old administrative authority, one of the historical administrative authorities dealing with local government questions. Then a whole mass of legislation came along which set up much more democratic bodies, county councils, district councils and parish councils and so on, and gave them administrative powers. Ought we to allow an appeal from the more modern, elective, democratic, House-of-Commons sort of local authority, namely, the county council, to the older, more unrepresentative administrative authority, namely, quarter sessions; or ought the matter to be kept in the main on purely administrative lines, as between the local authority on the one hand and then, when the subject has made use of his right to appeal, to be decided by—again I think the more representative authority—the Minister in his responsibility to this House? I would rather keep these things in the hands of the local authority primarily—the highway authority; then, when the subject has had his appeal, keep it again in the hands of an elected authority, namely, this House, to which the Minister is responsible. Therefore, as a person likely to be affected I think the proposal of the Minister is a considerable improvement on the proposals now in the Bill.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. FYFE: I should not have asked for the indulgence which this House traditionally gives to a maiden speech were it not that a great proportion of my life before joining this House has been spent in dealing with either legal or administrative matters before petty sessions and quarter sessions, and quite a considerable portion of the remainder in inquiries before officers of various Ministries. It does appear to me that if one takes the original view advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) one had a case put forward for the greater participation in and for greater power being given to justices of the peace in courts of summary jurisdiction in the administra-
tive functions of the land, with a corresponding power of correction at quarter sessions. But as this discussion has developed, we have turned from that greater use of the unpaid judiciary to a question as to the difference of power of decision and the difference of rightness and satisfaction of decision as between the inquiry and these courts.
On that point, may I respectfully remind the House that one of the questions which I know and appreciate is troubling the minds of hon. Members is that the official of the Ministry who might have to conduct the inquiry will pay more attention to, and will be further swayed by, the views of local authorities and the views of the particular officials of these local authorities? One of the difficulties which many hon. Members must have found in going to distant parts to argue a case before either petty or quarter sessions is that either of these tribunals is very largely composed of members of the local authority who are dealing with these problems. It is very difficult, I know, and I should be the last to blame them, for these members to divorce their preconceived notions of policy, of particular facts and local conditions and endeavour to decide these questions when they come before them.
We have seen the activities of inspectors appointed by this very Ministry when dealing with the question of transport, in which they had traditionally been in touch with the officials of local authorities. There we have had on many occasions appeals coming before the inspectors of the Ministry and, since the new Act, appeals from the Commissioners. I have had the honour of appearing before these inspectors for local authorities, for public utility companies, and for private companies who are carrying on transport for gain. In no case have I ever heard any serious complaint by a disappointed litigant or anyone else as to the conduct of these inquiries by these inspectors, or of the inability of the parties being able to place their evidence before them, or as to the consideration which they obviously get before a, report is given to the Minister and before the Minister is able to announce his decision.
Hon. Members have raised the question of time and expense. I have tried to map
out the time-table which is suggested by the Clause as it stands. The party aggrieved—and as hon. Members are aware that is a phrase which has been inserted from time immemorial merely to designate the disappointed person in a matter whose outcome is being discussed—is, according to this Clause, given 28 days to decide whether he will appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. After that there is the question of getting the day fixed by that court. If he is then disappointed with the decision which comes from the court of summary jurisdiction, he appeals to quarter sessions. He will have 14 days for putting in his notice of appeal. He will then have to face the consideration whether his appeal will come up at that court of quarter sessions, or should it come within the next 15 days, be held over until the next court of quarter sessions which will not come for some three months ahead. In all, at a modest computation, you will have to await a period in all probability of three to four-and-a-half months before this matter can come before quarter sessions.
I suggest to the House that with all the admiration which is held in all quarters of the House for those who unstintingly and ungrudgingly give their services free to the community, whether it be in a judicial or quasi-administrative capacity, it is extremely difficult for them, just as it is for petty sessions, to divorce from their minds, in coming to a decision on a question of policy and administration, those ideas which have been in their minds for most of their lives, which may be for or against the matters which they have to decide out of this appeal. At the present day it is practically impossible to get an appeal of this type to quarter sessions, involving questions of this character, and to inform the court on such questions without an expenditure of anything from £100 to £150. In an inquiry before the Minister, as hon. Members have suggested, you are dealing with someone who is familiar with the matter and can deal with it from the experience which years have given to him in dealing with similar matters all over the country. In matters of expense as well as matters of knowledge you are dealing with a court which can give a hearing of which no litigant need be afraid, and can give a decision after that hearing has been
held in public, with the courtesy and consideration which has always been found in such hearings in the past, and with that lack of expense which it has always been the endeavour of Ministers to promote in connection with such hearings.
I suggest that no one who seeks to defend our liberties, judicial or otherwise, our liberties in regard to anything that matters, who wishes our concerns publicly ventilated and justly and properly decided, need he afraid of these courts, if, as I am quite sure, the courts of inquiry follow the traditions and the course which have satisfied so many in connection with problems of administration in the past. Not merely in transport or in housing but, to take a very analogous case, the question of town planning and matters of the interim development order, there is a point which I respectfully suggest meets the objections of hon. Members who are afraid of the influence which will be wielded by officers of the local authorities. Time and again since 1922, when the interim development orders were made for town planning, those who wished to develop had to go before the inspector of the Minister and to put forward their suggestions for development against the suggestions of the local authority concerned. Again, history shows us that they have not been disappointed and they have had nothing to be aggrieved over in the results that they obtained. May I once again seek the indulgence of the House in allowing me to make these remarks, and say that I thank the House for the patience and courtesy which they have shown me on this occasion.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I be permitted to congratulate my old friend the new Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyffe) on his brilliant maiden speech, delivered, as I know without any midnight oil and prompted by a sincere conviction on the subject matter of this Debate, on which I regret that I have now to differ from him. I was hoping as the result of one interruption that I made during the Minister's speech, and a second interruption that I made during the speech of the Solicitor-General, that we should have had explained to us what is the difference between judicial, quasi-judicial and ad-
ministrative matters. I am told that in the Court of First Instance the judges said in a case: "This matter is purely administrative." When it went to the Court of Appeal the Court of Appeal said: "We think this matter is quasi-judicial." When it got to the House of Lords they had no doubt at all that the matter before them was a judicial one. If persons of such eminence differ, I am not in the least surprised that the Solicitor-General did not attempt to define to us what were judicial and administrative functions. In my judgment which, having regard to the disagreement among the experts, is as good as that of anybody else, for we get no guidance from the experts, it would appear that a decision to make a road from here, say, to Brighton is an administative decision. The decision that that road shall follow a certain route is an administrative decision, based on expert advice. As a result of that decision to lay out that road I ask for permission to build a house in a certain place, and that permission is refused. Then the question whether permission has been reasonably or unreaonably refused seem to me to be entirely a judicial one. If it is not, then there is no case, which you decide after hearing evidence as to the facts or hearing opinion, as you are forced to do in a great many cases, which is a judicial one. If that be the view, then it seems to me we might as well shut up the law courts except to say what particular words mean when a doubt arises, because we have said that everything else is administrative.
With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, we are now applying these things in an entirely new sphere. We are saying to the people of England, as was so well said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) "You are to be deprived for all time of a right that you already have to make access to the highway, on this condition, that permission to make access must not be unreasonably withheld." That is obviously an enormous invasion into private rights, not merely the private rights of landlords but the private rights of tenants. Every occupier of land in England is affected by this Bill in Clause 1 or Clause 2. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that when the highway authority, prompted by the Minister of Transport, undertake a certain enterprise and when
that enterprise interferes, as it may do, unfairly with private rights, the appeal is from Caesar to Caesar. It is the Minister who has initiated the particular enterprise which gives rise to the grievance and the appeal is back to the Minister. I have not sufficient experience of the quality of petty sessions and quarter sessions to say whether they are the most appropriate tribunal. It may well be the case that an ad hoc tribunal is wanted, not dissimilar to the House of Lords tribunal under the Ministry of Pensions Act. If we had an ad hoc tribunal independent of the Minister we should certainly get a national policy, uniform in principle.
It seems to me that the question of national policy in this matter has been very much overdone. Let us try to visualise the situation that may arise. I want either to put up a building or to get access. Because of the views not of a highway authority, the popularly elected people, but because of the views of a particular county surveyor, or deputy county surveyor, or sub-deputy, and ditto in the case of boroughs, who may say, "We do not think that you ought to have that right," I am held up. I want some means of effective check against the autocracy of these officials who are not directly responsible to the people. I believe that if we had an immediate and effective check we should not, have cases coming along to the courts. My legal friends on both sides have taken the view that every case is going to the courts. Our laws are most successful when no cases go to the courts, and I am looking forward to something which will be such an effective check to the autocracy of bureaucrats that they will know that they have to do their job in such a way that people are not unreasonably aggrieved.
In a great many cases it will be a matter of complete indifference technically where you make your access. You may very well be able to make the access 100 yards or a quarter of a mile away, and it will make not the slightest difference to the safety or to the layout, but you will be saving some man some amenity which he regards as essential. If the appeal is only to the Minister, obviously in nine cases out of 10 there will be the tendency on the part of the Minister—I am not saying that it will be this particular Minister but whoever performs the Ministerial function—to
back up his own people, and in this matter the surveyors are his own people. Therefore, I want some appeal to some separate authority. I say frankly that I think the Minister has done, his best, according to the lights within him, to put this matter right. Where I have differed from him throughout is that my outlook on the problem has been different from his. He says that you cannot administer this matter if you are held up by differing local conditions. The question of the layout of our highways, the general width, and the general question of amenities still remains an administrative function. That is what you seek to do. That is what the highways authorities, stimulated by the circulars and instructions of the Minister, will seek to do, but if in the application of general principles they inflict grave injustice on individuals then those individuals ought to have the right of appeal to some independent body.
The question to be decided is the question whether consent has been unreasonably withheld. The normal tribunal, if they think that consent has been reasonably withheld, will confirm the action of the highway authority. It is only in those cases where unreason has been shown that the desired protection is necessary. When one visualises how stiff in manner are those who know that against their decision there is no appeal, there is no human being in the wide world that I am prepared to entrust with autocratic powers. I do not believe in dictatorships, whether on a big scale or a little scale. There ought always to be some authority which can check unrestricted use of power. Because of that I am sorry that the Minister has made this proposal. If he wanted some national policy he should have set up some other form of tribunal other than himself. Although his present proposal is much better than that in the Bill, if my hon. and gallant Friend presses to a Division his opposition to the Minister's Amendment, I shall find myself forced to go into the Lobby with him.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am sorry to delay the House, and I will not do so for very long, but there are certain views which have not been expressed which I should like to put before the House. In this Debate only one supporter of the Govern-
ment has spoken in favour of the Minister's Amendment. I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to that very interesting fact. We have had two speeches in favour of the Amendment from the Liberal benches and one against. We have had one speech in favour of the Government from the. Socialist benches, but there has been no speech from the National Labour benches and the Liberal National Benches who support the Government in the ordinary way. I do not think, if I may say so with great respect, that it is right to go absolutely counter to the expressed wishes of the majority of the Government's supporters in a Case such as this.
Many of us feel very strongly about the rights of the individual in this matter. I took up a different line on the Housing Bill, for reasons which I thought were perfectly adequate. I believe that wherever possible a person aggrieved should have the right to go to the courts of law. I say "wherever possible" advisedly, because I believe that in certain cases the administrative disadvantages of allowing an appeal to a court of law are overwhelming. In the case of the Housing Bill I thought that if we had given such an appeal it would have ruined slum clearance and made it impossible to carry it out. But this Bill seems to be in quite a different category. I should like to draw a careful distinction between Clause 1 and Clause 2. If the Minister had devoted his speech solely to a defence of his action in withholding an appeal in regard to Clause 1 I could not possibly have opposed him, because under that Clause the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the safety of the roads. It is an administrative function and he is responsible to Parliament. It is a national matter.
Under Clause 2 quite a different position arises. I agree that the question of access comes in, but all the powers which are necessary with regard to access are contained in Clause 1, so far as the safety of the roads is concerned. In Clause 2 we are giving power to withhold access, to prevent ribbon development on the roads. That is purely an amenity matter. Every local authority will carry out the Clause in order to preserve the amenities of a particular locality. Neither the Minister nor the Solicitor-General has
made out a case proving that these two Clauses are on all fours; and the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised, even at this late hour, to accept a compromise, giving the Minister power to hear appeals under Clause 1 and allowing an appeal to the courts under Clause 2. The arguments have been against the Government in this matter. As Dr. Johnson once said, if we cannot out-vote them, we can at least out-argue them. I do not want to be in the position of having to vote against the Government. There is a strong case for giving the further concession—the concession which the Minister has made does not go very far—of retaining to the Minister power to hear appeals under Clause 1 and granting an appeal to the ordinary courts of law under Clause 2. I hope he will be able to make some concession of that kind.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I have sat during the whole of the Debate, because I think this is a matter of great importance to my constituents. I give place to no one in my desire that in no circumstances should a Minister undertake duties which should be performed by courts of law. My difficulty about the Bill, and the reason why I am going to support the Amendment, is that the first two Clauses prohibit all subjects doing certain things, but nowhere in the Bill do I find the reasons why these prohibitions on our liberties are imposed or the objects of the two Clauses. It is true that the objects of the two Clauses are to protect life and limb and the amenities of a district, but nowhere in the Bill is there any indication why these restrictions are imposed on our liberties. Starting with the fact that there is no expression of the reasons for these two Clauses, I have to consider which is the better of the two alternative tribunals to deal with a decision of the highway authority. The highway authority will doubtless act under the influence of a series of circulars from the Minister designed to unify policy throughout the country, and under the influence of these circulars they will refuse certain access and certain buildings.
It is suggested that the subject should have an appeal to petty sessions for quarter sessions from such a refusal. These are tribunals which are supposed to administer the law. Their function will be
to decide whether or not the highway authority has unreasonably refused leave. What question can they ask themselves but whether the body of men composing the highway authority have reasonably come to the conclusion to which they have come? It is not for them to say whether they would have decided differently; it is for them to make up their mind as to whether it is possible to say that the highway authority has definitely acted unreasonably. If the suggestion is that you should substitute the petty sessions or quarter sessions for the highway authority you would get different standards and different decisions all over the country, and no co-ordination. In those circumstances surely the alternative is this. The highway authorities will be acting in a uniform manner on instructions or suggestions received from the Minister; they will give their decision in a particular case. If an individual says that the decision based upon the uniform policy of the country is grossly unfair to him, he will ask, under the Government proposal, for a local inquiry to be held. The report will go in and the Minister will make his decision, giving his reasons. To my mind the individual who has suffered will have a far better chance of getting injustice dealt with satisfactorily by the procedure proposed in the Amendment than by the procedure in the Bill. I have listened to the Debate the whole afternoon and have tried to make up my mind as to which is more likely to do good to my constituents, and in my view the Amendment is much more likely in this particular case to do good.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. ASSHETON: I should like to add a word of congratulation to the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe) on his admirable maiden speech. He is an old friend of mine, and I am sure the House will welcome him warmly to its debates. I am in a great difficulty, because I like neither the Clause nor the Amendment. I appreciate the fact that the Minister desires to achieve uniformity. Any special tribunal would satisfy this desire of the Minister. I should be prepared to accept any reasonable tribunal, except that of the Minister himself. The present Minister of Transport has been such a splendidly active Minister, that I feel he is the last man in the world who would be competent to judge in matters of this kind and, therefore, I have no
alternative except to vote against the Amendment.

7.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has said that if the provisions of the Bill were administered by the courts, the judges or the chairmen of quarter sessions would have no indication as to the intention of Parliament in passing the Measure, because nowhere in the Bill are these intentions stated. A Preamble, of course, is not a part of a Bill, but the Preamble of this Bill would, I think, furnish some indication as to the intentions of Parliament. I am grateful to the Minister for the concession he has made, but it still contains a fatal defect, that when all is said and done, when every chance has been given to the aggrieved person to make out his case, when there has been all the publicity of a local inquiry and the Minister has stated his reasons for coming to his decision, it is the Minister who is the judge in the case. He is the man who started the whole proceedings, and, unfortunately, he is the

man who will decide the matter. I should have preferred that the Minister could have seen his way to agree to a compromise, that there should be a division between the matters contained in Clause 1 and Clause 2. The question of access is dealt with in Clause 1; it really is a dead letter in Clause 2.

I would put this submission to the House. Under Clause 1 the highway authority passes its resolution and the road is then planned of a certain width. Nothing should stop the carrying out of that plan. That is primarily a case for administrative decision. But in Clause 2, the amenity Clause, you have an entirely different set of affairs, and there is a proper case for the courts to decide where a person feels that he has been aggrieved. I do not think that the Minister has brought forward a compromise which is in the true spirit of that justice which we all so much desire to secure.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 201.

Division No. 304.]
AYES.
[7.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Salt, Edward W.


Apsley, Lord
Gower, Sir Robert
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Assheton, Ralph
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Atholl, Duchess of
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesdan, East)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Bower, Commander Robert Tetton
Janner, Barnett
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Buchanan, George
Lewis, Oswald
Turton, Robert Hugh


Burghley, Lord
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Nunn, William
Wise, Alfred R.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Remer, John R.
Sir Arnold Wilson and Captain




Waterhouse.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Cross, R. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burnett, John George
Crossley, A. C.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Daqgar, George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dickie, John P.


Banfield, John William
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dobbie, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Doran, Edward


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Bernays, Robert
Clarke, Frank
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Clarry, Reginald George
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Cleary, J. J.
Dunglass, Lora


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Edwards, Sir Charles


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Elmley, Viscount


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cove, Willian G.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Radlord, E. A.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Llswellin, Major John J.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Logan, David Gilbert
Rea, Sir Walter


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Robinson, John Roland


Gibbins, J.
Lunn, William
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Goldie, Noel B.
Mabane, William
Runge, Norah Cecil


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tyntmouth)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Graves, Marjorie
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Salter, Dr. Atfrad


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Grimston, R. V.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Hales, Harold K.
Magnay, Thomas
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Hall, Georqe H. (Merthyr Tvdvil)
Maitland, Adam
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Spans, William Patrick


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Storey, Samuel


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, C.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Hornby, Frank
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitchell, Sir W. Lana (Streatham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld Hart


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Summersby, Charles H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morgan, Robert H.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Thorns, William James


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Tinker, John Joseph


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Munro, Patrick
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jenkins, Sir William
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Paling, Wilfred
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palmer, Francis Nosi
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ker, J. Campbell
Parkinson, John Allan
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Peat, Charles U.
Wilmot, John


Kirkpatrick, William W.
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, Sir Walter


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Lawson, John James
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Worthington, Sir John


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Leonard, William
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Liddall, Walter S.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Mr. Blindell and Captain Hope.


Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

7.52 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, after "applicant," to insert:
and sufficient particulars as to the consent required.
The object of the Amendment is to make the purpose of the Clause clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Compensation for injurious affection under Sections 1 and 2.)

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 18, to leave out from "and," to "of," in line 20, and to insert:
notice to treat with respect thereto is, within twelve months after the claim, served by the highway authority in pursuance.
This Amendment is to safeguard the individual. The Bill as it now stands does not fix any time limit within which a council may settle a case by acquiring
the land. The Amendment provides that the Council must definitely have committed itself to purchase within 12 months. I think that it will meet with the general approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 21, leave out "such a notice," and insert:
notice that such proceedings as aforesaid are being taken."—[Captain Hudson.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Contraventions.)

7.55 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to move, in page 14, line 6, after "or," to insert "knowingly."
The Sub-section would then read:
If the owner or occupier of any land subject to restrictions in force under section one or section two of this Act commits, or knowingly permits any other person to commit, any contravention of a condition attached to any consent given under either of those sections. …
The object in moving this Amendment is to make it an offence only if something is done which the owner or occupier knowingly permits, and not to make him a criminal if an act is done, which is a contravention, without his knowledge. I do not think that it was ever intended that if an act took place without his knowledge he should be criminally responsible.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
This matter was discussed at some length in Committee and the Solicitor-General gave reasons which, with great respect, seemed to me to be inadequate, why the word "knowingly" should not be inserted. One can imagine circumstances where something happens which an individual might have stopped if he had taken the necessary steps. It seems to me the offence ought to be one which is done knowingly. I believe that the word "knowingly" has a special legal significance, because when the word is inserted, it is necessary to prove the matter up to the hilt. The court has got to establish that when the wrongful act was done the person who allowed it to be done was fully cognisant that it was going to take place and did not take steps to interfere. When what happened might at worst be in default, I think that it should be established that he was knowingly a party. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to explain to lay minds a little more fully than he did upstairs why it is he is opposed to the insertion of the word "knowingly" in this Clause.

7.58 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: After the conclusion of the discussion upstairs, I promised to reconsider this point and, for what my reconsideration is worth, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend that I have reconsidered it, and that I am of the same opinion. This Clause is dealing with contraventions of conditions. It is dealing with cases where the owner or occupier has got a consent, but on the basis that he fulfils a certain condition—for instance, that an access must be used only for agricultural purposes. Therefore, I think it is right that he should feel some responsibility for seeing that that condition is carried out, because it is on the basis of that condi-
tion only that the absolute prohibition imposed by Parliament in this Bill has been removed.
It is important to bear that in mind, but my real reason is that the prosecution have here to prove a permission. They have got to prove that the owner or occupier has permitted. Quite clearly you do not prove that the owner or occupier has permitted something if it was done in the dark, and he had no reason to suppose that it was being done. You have got to prove facts from which the court will draw the inference that there has been a permission, If we added the word "knowingly" the court would say: "Parliament has added this word 'knowingly' although the section already contains the word 'permits' which implies knowledge or means of knowledge, unreasonably neglected, and, as they have put in that additional word 'knowingly,' it means that we must be extremely particular and put the heaviest possible onus on the prosecution." If the word were inserted, the prosecution might have to prove specific knowledge of specific breaches committed at specific times and that might be an unreasonable onus to put upon them. Take, for instance, the case of access granted on the condition that it was only to be used for agricultural purposes. Supposing the prosecution could prove a reasonably notorious user every morning and every evening of that access for non-agricultural purposes, I do not think they should have placed upon them the additional onus of proving that particular instances of the use of the access by a particular person were known to the owner. In this context, I submit that the word "permits" gives the principle, for which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have contended, its proper scope.

Mr. LYONS: In view of the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power of Minister to remove restrictions.)

8.3 p.m.

Brigadier-General BROWN: I beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after "district," to insert:
or of any person interested in any land to which restrictions under section one or section two of this Act are in force.
When this question was raised in Committee the Minister said he recognised that there was a point in the argument put forward and that, if we could find a suitable form of words, he would be glad to try to meet that point. It is in the endeavour to find such a form of words that we have put down this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that where any person has obtained some exemption, protection or the like in the terms of an existing Act or by an agreement with a local authority under an existing Act, such person shall have an opportunity under Clause 12 of this Bill of asking the Minister to make an order compelling the highway authority to implement such bargain or agreement. There are many cases in which arrangements of the kind indicated have been made and while, as the Minister said, it would create difficulties if every individual were to have the right of asking for an inquiry into matters of this kind, I think a little more ought to be done to see that such agreements or bargains are not interfered with by the present Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. and gallant Friend will recall that this Clause is in the Bill as a result of suggestions made in the Committee. It empowers the Minister, on the application of the highway authority, to lift any restrictions which have been unnecessarily applied. The proper authority to make the application is the highway authority but the Government agreed to insert the words "or the council of any county district." Those are the accredited representative bodies with the right to speak upon the subject. It would be an imposition upon the administration if "any person" could make such an application and such a provision is not necessary if the highway authority is doing its proper business. I appreciate that my hon. and gallant Friend's purpose is that any previous agreements made with the highway authority should be honoured. That is a purpose which he has consistently advocated at various stages of the proceedings on the Bill. I am compelled to say, however, that the words of the Amendment would not secure the honouring of an agreement if the highway authority chose to violate that agreement. I can only
hope that highway authorities in this country who have entered into agreements with landlords, whereby they have taken the land as a free gift, will carry out any obligations which they have reciprocally undertaken, to make service roads or anything of that kind. I am, however, satisfied that if an agreement were entered into for a consideration there would be a recourse to the law courts, if it was a proper, technical agreement. In any event I think, in the first place, the highway authorities are honourable and will not violate such agreements and, in the second place, I cannot see how these words, of themselves, would ensure the purpose which my hon. and gallant Friend so rightly has in view.

8.8 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I agree that the words of the Amendment would not, perhaps, achieve that protection for which some of us hoped. This is a question of concessions made by landlords to local authorities to facilitate the improvement of roads. In some counties, including my own, considerable concessions of this kind have been made particularly in regard to the improvement of corners and dangerous places on roads. It has not been thought necessary in every case to put the agreements arrived at into the form of the legal documents. In many cases there has been a "gentleman's agreement" or understanding between the authority and the landlord that certain things should be done and all we want is some assurance that the obligation, which may be only a moral one, should be carried out. We want to know whether there is any appeal to the Minister or anybody else by the individual in those circumstances.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: On a point of Order. I had a new Clause on the Order Paper—(Preservation of existing protection conferred by local Acts)—which, it was pointed out to me, would more properly be moved in the form of an Amendment to this Clause. I have handed in an Amendment accordingly, and I wish to know whether it is intended to call that Amendment or not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers has not yet been reached.

Brigadier-General BROWN: In view of the Minister's reply I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to move, in page 14, line 26, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where by any local Act powers are conferred on a highway authority or provisions are enacted similar to the powers and provisions conferred or enacted by Section one (Power to adopt standard widths for roads), Section two (Restriction of building development along frontages of certain roads), and Section thirteen (Power to acquire land for road purposes), of this Act or any of those Sections, and that local Act contains provisions for the protection of any authorities, companies, or persons, those protective provisions shall apply in relation to—

(a) the exercise by that highway authority within the area to which the local Act applies of the powers conferred on the highway authority by; or
(b) the operation of the provisions of

the said Sections of this Act or any of them in like manner as they apply to the exercise of the powers of the highway authority under, or the operation of the provisions of, the local Act.
The reason why I asked whether it was intended to call this Amendment or not was because it relates to a subject analogous to that which we have just been discussing, I put down a similar Amendment in Committee but, unfortunately, the Chairman did not see his way to call it. On that occasion I, in common with other hon. Members, had been asked to put down such an Amendment by the Grand Union Canal Company, the Lea Conservancy Board and the Port of London Authority. Two or three local Acts recently passed give certain protection to statutory undertakers and others in respect of matters similar to those which we are now considering. Powers as regards prevention of ribbon development and standard widths of roads were included in the Essex Counts Council measure and the Middlesex County Council measure, both of which are now law, and also the Hertfordshire County Council Bill, which has yet to receive the Royal Assent. The three important bodies I have mentioned are given considerable protection in those local measures, and it is in order to perpetuate that protection in this Bill that I move the Amendment.
The Minister refused an analogous Amendment in Committee on the ground that Parliament was, on this occasion, legislating for the whole nation, and that it was not fair to place certain highway authorities who were operating under local Acts in a worse position than other similar authorities. He argued that if we were giving wide powers to highway authorities we must extend those powers to all highway authorities and not exclude some authorities who had slightly restricted powers under local Acts. The right hon. Gentleman also said on that occasion that those local authorities would, no doubt, honour their obligations in respect of these three important boards and others concerned. I have no doubt that they will, but if that is the case, if they do honour their obligations, clearly they will be in a worse position anyhow; on the other hand, in the unlikely event of their wishing to evade the obligations, obviously a protection such as I suggest is necessary.
The Minister may say that there is no adequate precedent for giving such protection, but if he will look at the Land Drainage Act, 1930, he will see that Section 66 gives protection in words very similar to those which I am proposing. I could instance all the cases in respect of which the Port of London Authority and the other boards I have mentioned have obtained protection in these local Acts, but I do not want to weary the House. I will simply say that in the case of the Essex Bill, the Port of London Authority has secured complete exemption for all land held for the purposes of their undertaking. I sincerely hope the Minister will consider very carefully whether he cannot grant this concession. He may say that there is already sufficient protection under Clause 12 as it stands, but the Clause merely says that if a highway authority applies for exemption, the Minister can grant it, but in addition to that, if the highway authority wishes to take back by resolution what it has applied for, it can do so. Therefore, it seems to me there is practically no protection given for a statutory undertaking in Clause 12.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I shall be brief, although I have been supplied by the various institutions to which the hon. Member referred with enough information to occupy the House with a long speech. The question at issue is simple. A local authority in a past Session has promoted a Bill, which has gone through the normal procedure; the Second Reading has probably been unopposed, but opposed upstairs by various interests; these interests have been satisfied; and these very judicial bodies of our fellow Members the Select Committees upstairs which consider private Bills, have been satisfied that a public utility or a private interest is entitled to certain protection under the provisions of a local Act. One of the cases sent to me refers to certain protection which was obtained by, I think, the Thames Land Company in the case of the Essex County Council Bill, and there are other cases which have been mentioned, of the Port of London Authority and the Dock and Canal Association, from whom I have received communications. Their argument is that if by a general Act the House withdraws a protection which the subject secures in a local Act, then it is inflicting an injustice, because the House is not in fact conscious of what it is doing. We do not know of the hundreds of cases where protection has been legitimately given by a Committee upstairs, and subsequently approved by the House, to an interest vis a vis a local authority, and when we confer general powers on all local authorities similar to those which individual local authorities have, we should take appropriate steps to make sure that we continue this protection. If, however, all the cases were before us, we should no doubt grant this protection without hesitation.
Under Clause 12 the highway authority can take the initiative, and the Minister has the dispensing power, but as I see it no power is given to the person who may be aggrieved and who may see his rights taken away because a highway authority has not initiated steps and the Minister, therefore, has not acted. Possibly the ideal way would have been to insert words in Clause 12 giving to all these interests the right to initiate proceedings, but possibly this proviso would be better, because it would give them effective protection. If the case is put that the protection which these people
obtained under past local Acts is a protection to which they are no longer entitled, the way to take it away is for the local authority in due course to promote another private Bill, or to put it in as part of any private Bill that they may be promoting, and once again the interests affected will be entitled to go upstairs, and, if they are turned down, they will have been turned down after a fair hearing. But surely it is wrong by a general Act, without this House intending it, to take away from people rights which they have established, very often at great expense, before an Opposed Bill Committee upstairs.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I took part in the discussion on the Essex County Council Bill and on the Middlesex County Council Bill, whereby an arrangement was come to between these undertakers and those councils to get certain concessions and privileges, and it was understood at the time that the arrangement would be permanent. I do not think it was ever anticipated by any of the parties concerned that powers would be conferred in the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill that would override the arrangement come to. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give consideration to this Amendment. I am not suggesting that the county councils concerned would go back on any arrangement they had made, but county councils come and go, or rather their constitution alters, and it would give those bodies an opportunity to take advantage of the powers conferred by this Bill.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. I am in some little difficulty in this matter. It will be observed that Clause 12 has a marginal heading which indicates what the Clause proposes to do. It deals with the power of the Minister to remove restrictions, but this new proposal deals with the preservation of existing protections conferred by local Acts, and if it is embodied in the Clause without being entered as a new paragraph, I do not see what relation it will bear to the rest of the Clause.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: It is a proviso.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is moved as a proviso, but in any case the marginal note is not part of the Bill.

Mr. JONES: But the Amendment is not moved in the form of a proviso.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. In putting the Question, I started with the words, "Provided that."

8.25 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I did not realise at first which Amendment we were discussing, but now that I know which it is, I quite appreciate the point. It is one with which those who sat on the Committee upstairs have become familiar. It is a more emphatic form of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), who is concerned with the moral responsibility of highway authorities to recognise gifts of land and other concessions made by landowners in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), like my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) is concerned more with bargains that may have been made by companies in the course of the passage of a private Bill. The situation, as I envisage it, is that in the course of the passage of such a Measure some arrangement has been made whereby a powerful corporation has withdrawn its opposition to the Bill in return for being freed from the restrictions which the private Bill proposed to put upon the land abutting on the highway in its district.
I do not see any particular reason why Parliament should recognise—and I think I am sustained here by the highest constitutional authorities—some arrangement made in order to secure the passage of a private Bill into law. Here we are dealing with the general situation. Parliament has come to the conclusion that the present licence to make means of access to the road as and where the individual may think fit shall be terminated in favour of a system of control by the highway authorities under which the individual has to apply for a consent. It may happen that some county councils have in the past shown sufficient foresight to obtain similar powers, but it is difficult to get private legislation through Parliament, and therefore they have obtained what they can, and sacrificed the general principle in its ideal application in order to get the most they can
in return for the withdrawal of powerful opposition. I do not see why that in the least should inhibit Parliament from the right to make a general provision that building and access within certain limits are to be denied as a right; I do not see why it should govern Parliament.
We are here legislating for the country as a whole, and in the particular cases which any hon. Friend has in view the legislation has a limited effect, and the consideration was that the private Act should not apply to a particular company or corporation. It has been freed, and it has had its advantage, and the. Bill is still upon the Statute Book. If the highway authorities choose to implement the bargain, as presumably they will if it be a proper and just one, they can do so, and it is for the highway authorities to come to the Minister and say, "This Bill ought not to apply to certain roads." If they do not choose to do that, I do not see how I can be put in the invidious position of determining whether the consideration was a proper one and whether the exception was one that ought to be given in the general interest. I realise that my hon. Friend has this point very much at heart, because it was put repeatedly to me in Committee, principally by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who, I am glad to say, has been silent on this occasion, leaving the advocacy of this case to the formidable speeches made by my hon. Friends. I am not in the least unsympathetic, but the highway authority must be the proper authority to make the application.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: My right hon. Friend indicated that these powerful authorities—the Port of London Authority and others—have blackmailed the Hertfordshire County Council and others into giving them their will during the passage of these Bills. These things are very often done by agreement. Just because an authority is bargained with, it does not mean that it can stop the passage of the Bill unless it is given what it wants. The Minister did not answer my main point. I said that in the 1930 Land Drainage Act there were powers almost exactly similar to these. Protection was given to persons or Authorities who had the benefit of existing protections. I can see no reason why, if that protection were
given under the Land Drainage Act, it should not be given under this Bill.

8.32 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment, because the moral strength of any Bill passed by this House is that it gives equal treatment to different parties.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Bill does not.

Sir J. LAMB: It should do. The Amendment asks for unequal treatment as between local authorities and private individuals. A local authority may have acquired certain rights in a private Bill some years ago under different circumstances. On the other hand, an individual may have acquired rights in another way. This Bill would enable a local highway authority to deal with a private individual in one way, but, if the authority wished to do something in regard to the roads which infringed upon powers which had been given to it in some bygone days, they would have to go to the expense of promoting a private Bill to get these powers altered.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Power to acquire land for road purposes.)

8.33 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 15, line 39, to leave out "forms," and to insert, "is required to be retained as."
This Amendment is proposed at the request of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who pointed out that a park might be a park in name and that the owner might put up a lot of horrible little houses and make it a housing estate. We are assured that this form of words will meet the case, and that as long as the park is retained as a park, it will be covered by this Clause.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: As the Mover of an Amendment which the Minister accepted in Committee, I was interested in this alteration. I would only utter the caveat that the Minister's wording originally was the wording of the Surrey Act, and it is a pity to have two Acts, the Surrey Act and this Act, with different wording. On the other hand, I accept the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that it will not make any real difference and will prevent a building estate being classed as a park.

8.35 p.m.

Major MILLS: I, too, should like to say a word on this Amendment, because when I saw it on the Paper I was rather alarmed. I could understand what land which formed part of a park meant, but when it was to be "any land which is required to be retained as part of a park," I was not at all clear. The use of the passive verb raised in my mind the question "By whom is it to be retained?" and though I read through the rest of the Clause the conundrum is not answered. I am sure that the intentions of the Minister in bringing forward these words are sound, but as this Bill will have to go to another place for consideration of our Amendments I suggest that the Minister might consider whether these words are either grammatical or clear. They may be grammatical but certainly they are not clear, and I think it would be a great pity to have any more misunderstandings.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. ORR-EWING: I must thank the Minister for this Amendment. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Major Mills). To me the words appear absolutely clear. After all, land which is not required to be retained as part of a park could not really claim to be part of that park in the sense that a park is an amenity to a house which it surrounds. I will not detain the House by going into the dangers and difficulties which might have arisen if this Amendment had not been proposed. I have been asked by several hon. Members, especially by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, "Who would require the land to be retained" I think the circumstances are what would require the land to be retained as part of the park. The word "erquire" refers far more to circumstances than to any individual. I once again express my gratitude for this Amendment.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us the answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? Who does require—the owner, or some planning authority? It is not clear to me.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 13, line 40, leave out the first "or."

In line 40, leave out "of the."—[Captain Hudson.]

8.40 p.m.

Major MILLS: I beg to move, in page 16, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(5) The highway authority shall give to any person from whom they have purchased land compulsorily under this Section such reasonable facilities for communication under such land with adjoining land by means of drains, pipes, electric lines, ducts, or other apparatus constructed at the cost of the person requiring the communication as may be agreed between the highway authority and such person or, in default of agreement, determined by the Minister.
In any case where any highway authority acquires land by virtue of the provisions of this Clause they acquire automatically any rights in, under or over that land. That is quite clear from the definition of "land" in Clause 24. In a good many cases lands have been acquired by persons or companies for the sole purpose of obtaining the right to lay pipes or cables or mains connecting one part of an industrial undertaking to another. In some cases these pipes or mains, have actually been laid. Pieces of land acquired for this purpose are often part of a right acquired to lay pipes, and they may extend over many miles, and it will be appreciated that the acquisition of such a right or series of rights, which may comprise in some places way leaves or at other places involve the actual ownership of the land, can only be accomplished after considerable negotiation and expense. The acquisition of land which would beak the chain would render the remainder useless, unless an alternative route could be provided, which might be expensive or might involve a long detour. Sub-section (6) gives an immunity from the operation of this Clause to statutory undertakers, except with regard to a very limited class of cases dealt with in the next Clause.
It seems to me unfair and illogical that no protection should be given to private industrial concerns, which have no means of acquiring these rights otherwise than by negotiation, while statutory undertakings are protected and can acquire their rights compulsorily. This Amendment does not seek of necessity that any owner should be given a free way leave over land, it does not propose that he should sell something and retain the greater part of it, but he should be given
such reasonable facilities for communication as he may agree with the highway authority, or as may be settled by the Minister in default of agreement. Of course the highway authority or the Minister would be entitled to attach to any such agreement the payment of a reasonable rental and the repair of any damage done to the land by the laying of such pipes or cables.

Mr. MABANE: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have been reading this Amendment very closely while my hon. and gallant Friend has been moving it, and trying to discover the justice of it. A highway authority purchases land either with or without rights to lay pipes. It purchases the land and the land is then the property of the highway authority. It has paid the full market value for the land. That is the situation when my hon. and gallant Friend arrives with his Amendment, and says that the highway authority shall give to any person from whom they have purchased land reasonable facilities for communication under such land on such terms as may be agreed between the highway authority and that person. He says they should be required to give these facilities on such terms as may be agreed. But supposing there is no agreement. What is the meaning of the words that they shall be required to give such terms as may be agreed? My hon. and gallant Friend need not interrupt me; I am simply indicating to him that I could not, at this stage of the Bill, accept an Amendment in this form. In default of an agreement the matter is to be determined by the Minister.
That is the crucial phrase in this Amendment. The matter is to be determined by the Minister. When the highway authority seek an Order to purchase the land they must go to the Minister, who before confirming the Order must hear any objections, and may embody in the Order any conditions he thinks proper, for instance, conditions such as my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind for the conservation of any rights, as they may legitimately be called, or prospects, which a company may have of laying drains over the land to be acquired. At that stage my hon. and gallant Friend is not prepared to trust
the Minister to make a fair adjudication, to say to the highway authority, "Well, you may acquire this land, but remember that X company have drains coming gradually along and eventually they will wish them to pass over this land." He is not prepared to trust the Minister to do that, but he is prepared to trust the Minister to make an agreement afterwards that this shall be done.
Those are the defects in this Amendment. The Amendment is not really required in this Bill. No change is made by this Bill in the procedure laid down for compulsorily acquiring land. The Minister is still bound to hear objections. There is no change in that procedure which has existed, certainly for the past generation, and probably for very much longer than that. Reliance has always been placed upon the Minister to protect any reasonable interest, and there is no change in the basis of compensation, which is also the usual basis. All that we are doing is to extend the purposes for which land may be compulsorily acquired from the existing purposes to certain other purposes; but the procedure remains and so does the basis of compensation. I do not think there has ever been an occasion on which that procedure has failed to do justice to objectors. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend who put the Amendment before the House will not find it necessary to press an Amendment which would place compulsory acquisition of land by a highway authority upon a different basis from what has hitherto, and I think satisfactorily, prevailed.

Major MILLS: My right hon. Friend has so frankly and courteously explained the position, that I should like to show my trust in him by begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power to acquire compulsorily for certain road purposes rights in connection with land belonging to local authorities and statutory undertakers.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 18, line 27, leave out "or."

After "harbour," insert "works, or apparatus."—[Hr. Hore-Belisha.]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These two Amendments impose a charge.

Captain HUDSON: They will be considered upon Recommittal.

CLAUSE 16.—(Extension of powers of local authorities as to parking places.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 25, after "accordingly," insert:
as including such buildings, underground parking places, cloakrooms, and other conveniences."—[Captain Hudson.]

8.49 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 20, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(4) Sub-section (6) of the said section sixty-eight (which relates to the power of a local authority to make regulations as to the matters therein specified) shall have effect as if for the word 'regulations' there were therein substituted, in all places where that word occurs, the word 'bye-laws,' and in relation to any bye-laws made under the said sub-section references in section two hundred and fifty of the Local Government Act, 1933, to 'the confirming authority' shall be construed as references to the Minister of Health:
Provided that any regulations which were in force under the said sub-section immediately before the passing of this Act shall, during the period of twelve months after the passing thereof, have effect as if they had been bye-laws made under the said sub-section as amended by this Act.
This Amendment gives effect to a proposed new Clause which stood second on the Order Paper to-day, in regard to the making of by-laws by local authorities in regard to parking places. The local authority will be empowered to make bylaws instead of regulations, and this will enable them to initiate proceedings in case of the improper use of parking places. This change was requested during the Committee.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I am very grateful to the Minister for putting forward this Amendment, but I am sorry to say that those who were largely responsible for it, the local authorities, are of the opinion that it goes rather too far. On many occasions the Minister has complained that when he makes a concession he is asked for more, but on this occasion I am happy to tell him that he has given the local authorities more than they asked for. He has been so busy with perhaps more important Amendments that he may not have had the time to consider the precise effect of the one which he is now proposing. This morning I handed in a
manuscript Amendment. It was not possible to put it down to-day, and the Minister's Amendment was placed on the Paper only on Saturday. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if your attention has been called to my manuscript Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No; Mr. Speaker has decided not to call it.

Mr. MAITLAND: May I then ask the Minister to consider the precise effect of his Amendment in its present form? The position which the local authorities take is that they would like to see the Amendment restricted to parking places which form part of the street. While they appreciate the courtesy of the Minister in meeting them, the Amendment, if it remained in its present form, would mean that on Friday of next week all the regulations which are the subject of the proposed Sub-section would come to an end, and any local authority which had provided parking places would not be able to charge until the by-laws were made and confirmed, and that would take some months. I am further advised that the Minister of Health will be bombarded by local authorities with applications for the confirmation of by-laws in the next few weeks, and that there is no possible reason for requiring by-laws for all parking places. I hope that the Minister may see his way to accept some such words as those which I put into the Amendment which Mr. Speaker has decided not to call, having regard to the practical effect of the Minister's Amendment in its present form. I do not wish to be churlish, and I would thank him for what he has done in trying to meet the local authorities.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am the last person to consider my hon. Friend churlish. On the contrary, he takes a very tolerant view of my generosity. In the Committee stage, Members of all parties put their names to an Amendment asking that the regulations affecting parking places of local authorities should henceforward have the force of by-laws The case, as I understood it and still understand it to be, is that the regulations are not enforceable, whereas bylaws would be enforceable. I studied the Amendment closely in the Committee stage, as I did all Amendments, and I have of my own motion put down a
number of them to cover various points; this was one of them. My hon. Friend now says—I think he is entitled to speak for the municipalities concerned—that it will be an imposition upon the local authorities if they have to make by-laws instead of regulations, covering all their parking places, whether on the streets or off the streets. They want the by-laws to apply to the streets and not off the streets so that they do not have any trouble.
According to my hon. Friend they say that on Friday all the regulations will fall if this Clause be carried. May I direct the attention of my hon. Friend to the proviso, which says that any regulations which were in force shall, during a period of twelve months after the passing of this Measure, have effect as if they had been by-laws? The existing position is covered for 12 months, during which the local authorities may adjust themselves to the new conditions which, generally, are more favourable to them because they will be able to enforce their regulations. They will have 12 months in which to do that. That proviso has evidently been overlooked. In the circumstances, I hope that any inconvenient results of my having given them more than they asked for may be removed, as it is certainly my desire to remove them.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Power to require the provision of means of entrance and egress, etc., as a condition of approval of building plans.)

8.54 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, after "authority", to insert:
after consultation with the chief officer of police for the district.
This Amendment and the next Amendment should be read together. They are drafting Amendments. It is felt that the words "chief officer of police" come better in line 16 than in line 29.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 29, leave out
and with the chief officer of police for the district.

In page 21, line 1, after "authority," insert:
if they are not the highway authority as respects any road affected."—[Captain Hudson.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Expenses.)

8.56 p.m.

Mr. GUY: I beg to move, in page 23, line 27, to leave out "with the consent of the Treasury."
This Amendment raises the vexed question of Treasury control over the Road Fund. That question was fully thrashed out, as regards grants out of the Road Fund, in the discussions on the Finance Bill, and I do not propose to traverse that ground again. Clause 19 of the present Bill deals only with the expenses under the Bill which fall on the Road Fund. Sub-section (1) reads:
Such part of the expenses incurred by or in connection with the roads department of the Ministry of Transport as the Minister may from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury, determine to be expenses incurred in the carrying into effect of this Act shall be paid out of the Road Fund, and there shall be included in the expenses to be so paid such charges in respect of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities payable on death or retirement as the Minister with the like consent may determine.
Apart from the question of Treasury control over payments out of the Road Fund, there is serious objection to Treasury control over the actual day-to-day expenses coming out of the Road Fund. I know that a rigid scrutiny over the expenses of the other Departments is exercised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who keeps a watchful eye on the taxpayers' money. But the Road Fund is a special case; it is not the taxpayers' money, but money contributed by motorists through the horse-power tax. It is important from the general transport point of view that the administration of the Ministry of Transport should not be fettered by anything in the nature of a cheese-paring control. It must be borne in mind that Parliament has placed many duties upon the Ministry of Transport in recent years, and the carrying out of these duties entails additional expense upon the Road Fund. A great deal of the success of measures for the restriction of ribbon development and roads improvement, of schemes for pedestrian crossings, and so on, depends upon adequate funds being available for carrying out these schemes, that is to say, for adequate staffing of the Ministry. I understand that the Ministry of Transport to-day has no legal department, and, if that be so, I think it should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. I have no doubt
that the Minister, if he had a free hand, would set up such a legal department, instead of relying upon the Home Office—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now going very far beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. GUY: I do not wish to pursue that point; I am only using it as an illustration. To come back to the question of Treasury control over the expenses, it is true that the words "with the consent of the Treasury" appear in the corresponding Section of tae Roads Act, 1920, but I think it will be generally accepted, from a reading of the Debate on the Bill of 1920, that it was the intention of Parliament in 1920 that the Road Fund should be left entirely within the control of the Ministry of Transport. This point was not raised in Committee upstairs. I do not know whether that was due to an oversight, or to the fact that the Committee did not wish to carry such an Amendment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not appear to oppose it, but I notice that on the Front Government Bench to-night neither the Chancellor of tie Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary is present. This, therefore, is an opportunity for the Minister of Transport to break through the shackles of Treasury control over expenses paid out of the Road Fund, and I would ask him to take the opportunity.

Mr. LIDDALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is so valiant a champion of the Ministry of Transport that I regret very much to be in the position of not accepting his Amendment. He conceives me as an innocent lady tied to a tree by Treasury ropes. He comes and offers to release me, and I refuse to quit. I agree that that is not only romantic but unsatisfactory. At the same time, this does not seem to me to be the appropriate place at which to raise the major question of policy as to how far the poor Minister of Transport should be under the control of the cruel Treasury. That is a major question, but all that this Bill provides is that the poor officials of the poor Ministry of Transport who carry this Bill into operation shall be paid something, subject to the conditions
which the Treasury may lay down, and presumably they will be conditions governing the whole Civil Service. That does not seem to be an unreasonable provision. I have no doubt that the Treasury will treat our officials in the same way as all officials are treated, and that proper rates will be paid and superannuation on a suitable scale. This does not seem to me to be the occasion for a complete examination of the important issues at stake, which my hon. Friend did raise in connection with the Finance Bill this year, and upon which, happily, it was not my duty to reply.

Mr. GUY: In the hope that there may be a more favourable opportunity later, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 23.—(Savings.)

9.4 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 27, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(b) in the case of a drainage board to make, alter or repair any bank in connection with any watercourse; or".
This Amendment has been handed in in manuscript form at the request of certain drainage authorities, who want to know exactly how they stand when they have to repair banks in connection with any watercourse. The Minister may say that the Amendment is unnecessary, and, if that be so, perhaps he will be able to make it quite clear to drainage authorities exactly how they stand in connection with the work specified in the Amendment. Otherwise, I hope that, in the interests of the smooth working of the drainage authorities, he will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

9.5 p.m

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
The drainage boards have consulted their legal authorities and, while they are not at all anxious to embarrass the Minister or to injure the Bill, they want to feel doubly sure that in the ordinary course of their repair of any bank or watercourse they will not be obliged to consult the highway authority to secure permission to do what they have always had the power to do previously. The Amendment is moved to ascertain from
the right hon. Gentleman how his legal experts view the point. Catchment boards have very important duties to undertake, and it would be far better if, before the passing of the Bill, they can be quite sure that there will be no legal quibble and that they well be unaffected and will be able to continue their work. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that the words of the Bill cover the point and that catchment boards will not be embarassed in their normal duties, we shall have no hesitation in accepting his word, but the legal experts of the catchment board authorities think that the words in the Bill do not quite cover the point. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can clear it up.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking while I was trying to discover exactly where the Amendment came in and what it was. A piece of paper was handed to me announcing that an Amendment was to be moved on page 26, and I was a little confused when it came on page 27, and I did not quite hear the words. A drainage board is apparently already permitted to make any excavation that may be necessary for the purpose of repairing a waterworks without consent. The hon. Member's question really is whether it may similarly build up a bank without consent in the ordinary course of its work. I am advised that nothing very serious would arise anyhow, because the drainage authority would get consent from the highway authority. But I should not like to leave anyone in any doubt on the matter. I am advised that the words are not really necessary, but they may remove a doubt, and no objection is seen to them at this minute. I hope I am not committing an error in giving a rapid and decisive answer—I always like to do that—but I do not want the Bill to go through the House leaving a sense of injustice rankling anywhere. Accordingly, I propose to accept the Amendment if the House is agreeable. The words are certainly in themselves innocuous.

Mr. TURTON: It is rather dangerous to have the Bill altered by a manuscript Amendment which none of us has read and none of us understands. Would it not be better for this to be dealt with in less indecent haste in the further stage that the Clause will have in another
place? It is a pity to put in something which might alter the whole meaning of the Bill.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If we put the words in here we can still strike them out in another place. If we do not put them in we cannot. I will look very carefully at them. I only want to remove doubt or apprehension.

Amendment agreed to.

9.11 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 27, line 43, at the end, to insert:
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect any powers or duties of the Postmaster-General under the provisions of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1926, and for the purposes of those Acts any underground parking place situate under a street which is provided and maintained under section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, shall be deemed to be a subway within the meaning of section six of the Telegraph Act, 1878.
This is the usual savings Clause of this kind. It might really have been put in at an earlier stage.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 28, line 13, after "similar," to insert "structures or."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The Bill will be improved and the position made more consistent throughout by the insertion of these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 28, line 25, at the end, to insert:
'Chief officer of police' has the same meaning as in the Police Pensions Act, 1921.
This is consequential upon an Amendment made in Committee on Clause 17, and is the usual definition of what is meant by "chief officer of police."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Application to Scotland.)

9.13 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 31, line 1, to leave out paragraph (3).
This is consequential upon the decision of the House to omit the provision for advertisement in the "London Gazette."

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I [...]eg to move, in page 31, line 16, to leave out from "sub-section" to "(1)," in line 19.
This is consequential upon the decision of the House in regard to the right of appeal to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I beg to move, in page 32, line 24, at the end, to insert:
(10) Section sixteen shah have effect as if sub-section (4) were omitted and sections one hundred and eighty-three to one hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, shall apply, in like manner as they apply to bye-laws made under that Act, to regulations made under sub-section (6) of section one hundred and twenty of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, with the substitution of the Secretary of State for the Board, and any penalty under any such regulation shall be recoverable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction.
This is the same point that was dealt with a few moments ago in regard to by-laws for parking instead of regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 32, line 33, leave out from "(6)," to "shall," in line 42, and insert:
In the event of the erection of a new building (being a building to which this section applies) without compliance with any condition in force under this section or in the event of any means of entrance or egress or accommodation provided in compliance with such a condition ceasing to be maintained by the owner or occupier in accordance with the requirements thereof, the owner or occupier, as the case may be.

In page 35, line 2, leave out "3," and insert "2."

In line 3, leave out "4," and insert "3."

In line 16, at the end, insert:
and the arbiter may, and if so required by any of the parties shall, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court of Session any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration."—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Short title and extent.)

9.16 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 35, line 17, to leave out "Restriction of Ribbon Development," and to insert "Roads Improvement."
This is perhaps an Amendment which does not appear to be very important. It merely seeks to alter the Title of the Bill. When I ventured to propose a similar Amendment in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister, in response to a suggestion that "ribbon development" was more or less in the nature of a catch-phrase, said that he found the words in the Oxford Dictionary. Since he made that observation, I have taken the trouble to read through the Bill, and I cannot find these words except in the Title. I hope that my right hon. Friend has not come to the House with his mind made up not to change the Title. It is true that it arose out of the phrase of "ribbon development" and out of the general resentment in the country of ribbon development, but I suggest that really the Bill as it is now completed has a much wider application. May I refer him to the Preamble of the Bill, and say that it is desirable that the Title should have some reference to the general purposes of the Bill? As it has come from another place, the Bill, in its Preamble, is described as,
An Act to provide for the imposition of restrictions upon development along the frontages of roads; to enable highway authorities to acquire land for the construction or improvement of roads or for preserving amenities or controlling development in the neighbourhood of roads; to extend the powers of local authorities as to the provision of accommodation for the parking of vehicles and as to the prevention of interference with traffic; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
That very admirably sets out the general purposes of the Bill. Shortly, it may be said that it is an Improvement of the Roads Bill, and, therefore, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, while in the change proposed there is no violation of any principle, there are no administrative difficulties involved, but there would be, by a change of Title, a more apt description of what the Bill seeks to do.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
Not only is there need for change of Title, but the very Title which my right hon. Friend read out is now no good, because the Minister has changed Clause 13 which is no longer the Clause for acquiring land or preserving amenities, and for that reason both titles should really now be changed.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have listened to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends, and I say at once that had there been any powerful case of emotion in the House to sweep this Title out of the Bill I should not have resisted it. But now that we have made so long and so pleasant a journey together I have become rather attached to the old Title of "Ribbon Development," we realise that it connotes something in the public mind. Those two words stand for the abuse and the spoiling of the countryside, which we have together vowed to try to eliminate. My hon. Friend wishes to substitute for the Title "Roads Improvement Bill." We have upon the Statute Book a Roads Improvement Bill which is slightly different in purpose from this Bill, and I am not anxious to create any confusion in the minds of those who look to these Acts for guidance. I do not think that titles matter very much in life, or that anyone is likely to be misled by the name by which this Bill is called. Those who are voluntarily interested in it will read it and those who are compelled to be interested in it to the extent of operating it will be bound to read it. I do not feel that the House has a real desire to change the Title of the Bill. In fact I feel that those hon. Members who are not present would be rather disappointed if they came back later in the Debate and found that the Title of the Bill which they had been discussing had already been changed.

9.22 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I hope the Minister will not think that because no one has spoken beside the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment there is no desire in any other part of the House in favour of the Amendment. I think that the Minister is losing an opportunity, after the able way in which he has carried the Bill through, of giving a concession which would really be approved and appreciated by a large number not only in this House but outside the House. People to-day may know the Ribbon Development Bill is to remove an objectionable feature in the present method of building houses adjacent to our highways, and in a very few years I hope that if this Bill is a success—and we all hope that it will be—there will be no ribbon development. People may then ask, "What does ribbon development
mean?" This would cause far more confusion than that which my right hon. Friend anticipates if there were more than one Roads Development Bill. If precedents are worth anything we have a considerable number of Housing Bills of different dates, and I do not think there would be any harm in having another Roads Improvement Bill, as that is the definite object of the Bill. It would be a Roads Improvement Bill of the present date. I hope that even now the Minister will consider the suggestion and carry out what would be a very graceful and useful act and one which would undoubtedly put the finishing touch to the Bill.

9.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Hon. Members might ask whether there was a precedent at a late stage for changing the name of an important Bill like the present Measure. The Minister of Transport may not be aware of the fact that when Sir Eric Geddes was appointed a Minister he was really, until the last hour or two, to have been called the Minister of Ways and Communications. It was not until we got to the very last stage that an alteration was made changing that very long title. It is because it was accepted on that particular occasion that the Minister is Minister of Transport at the moment. But I am not in favour of this Amendment because the Acts we have passed in regard to motor cars, traffic and roads are all so interlocked and so overlapping that it is very difficult for the ordinary layman to understand them as it is. There will be more road and traffic Acts in the future, I suppose, and though this particular Bill goes further than actually was required, for the restriction of ribbon development, it would be well to put it on the Statute Book as the Ribbon Development Act. It will then be automatically differentiated from some of the other Acts we slave already passed and from those which, I suppose, we shall pass in the future.

9.27 p.m.

Sir F. ACLAND: This is not a matter of intense importance, but I take the view that if you have hit on something which is only slightly picturesque it is a pity to give it up. It is difficult to define "ribbon development," but by this time we all know what we mean by it; and the title is just slightly picturesque
—certainly more so than a humdrum title like Roads Improvement Bill or something like that would be. There is something in a title. I remember that once in this House, I do not know how many years ago, there had been a most frightful row about something and while passions were still very much worked up the Clerk at the Table, at that time Sir Courtenay Ilbert, poured oil on the troubled waters by the mere announcement of the Bill that was to come before the House next. In his beautiful voice he said: "Summer Time Bill." That was the Bill that altered the clocks in the spring and gain in the autumn—and it might have been objected that that was a somewhat picturesque title and that it ought to be superseded by some more humdrum title. But I have always liked the sound of that title—and so I do that of the Ribbon Development Bill.
I had staying with me yesterday the head of the Canadian Forestry Service, who is on a second visit to England with one or two colleagues from Canada who have not been in England before. He desired to show them the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and although he did not know the neighbourhood of Westminster very well, he did just know where the buildings were, because he knew what the Abbey looked like from outside. He looked about for a notice-board to tell him which was the block of the Parliament Buildings and, if possible, which was the Lords and which was the Commons. And, he said, having looked up and down the street in this neighbourhood very carefully, that the only notice he could see which gave any indication of the purpose to which these buildings were applied was a notice, primarily intended, I suppose, for motorists, which read: "Dead Slow"! Nothing else could he find giving any clue to the purpose to which these buildings are put. I think, therefore, that we ought to try to hang on to anything which seems to make our business conform a little less to that description than they sometimes do at present. In the case of the present Bill I hope that the picturesque title will be preserved.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I want to support this Amendment. The Minister of Transport asked what was in a name. I am afraid that when the
Minister and I have passed from this realm to the realms above—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]—somebody will want to know why this name was given to this Bill. The people we have left below will want to know why; and when they look back into history they will discover that this was the year of the Silver Jubilee, when so much ribbon was knocking about, and they will conclude that that was the reason for calling this the Ribbon Development Bill. While the last speaker was telling of the experience of some Canadian guests of his I was speaking to one of the officers of the Urban District Councils Federation, and he suggested that to make this a decent Bill we should take the "Ribbon" out of it altogether. I think that if the Minister would try to look at this Bill as it will appear in the future he would agree with that. [Interruption.] Red tape! It is red tape and blue tape, and yellow tape as well, and I think it is far better to call it the Roads Improvement Bill. When people in the future look at it they will wonder why on earth we have called it the Ribbon Development Bill. Through being upstairs on the Committee we have got some idea of its meaning, but ordinary people outside will not realise what is meant by this title of Ribbon Development Bill. I hope that the Minister, for his own sake and for the sake of the Committee which attempted to hammer this into a decent Bill, will accept this alternative title of the Roads Improvement Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Advertisement and Notice of Resolutions.)

9.32 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 36, line 31, after "relates", to insert:
and specify the places and times at which the plans deposited in accordance with the provisions of this Act may be inspected.
This Amendment is consequential on the provision we have now made in Clause 1, for plans to be deposited in all cases of standard widths.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 37, line 1, leave out paragraph 2.—[Captain Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Alterations and extensions to which consent may be withheld or made subject to conditions in the case of buildings erected or made before the date on which restrictions come into force.)

Mr. LEVY: I beg to move, in page 37, line 30, to leave out from "habitation" to the end of the paragraph.
If hon. Members will read paragraph 2 they will find that it imposes a good many irritating restrictions which have little or nothing to do with the Bill. In Committee we asked the Minister to reconsider this matter before the Report stage and with his usual courtesy and his desire to do justice as far as he can within the bound of this Bill, he said that he would accept an Amendment, if it were moved, to eliminate the irritating restrictions while not altering the substance of the Bill. This Amendment has been put down, and I have the gratification of knowing that my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept it. I should like to express to him our thanks for the courtesy which he has shown us.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to point out how ridiculous the words of the Bill are. What the Bill means, as the words stand, is that if I had two families in my house as paying guests, that is allowed under the Bill, but if on each landing I put up a door I have to get leave to have them in.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite agree that the words are a somewhat stringent restriction. They mean that if a house is divided into two it becomes a new building for the purposes of this Act and that is not our real intention. I think the Schedule will be improved without these words.

Amendment agreed to.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. LIDDALL: I beg to move, in page 37, line 33, to leave out paragraph (3).
We object to this paragraph, because if a dwelling-house were turned into a shop and the premises were to revert to a dwelling-house the owner of the premises could not carry out the necessary alteration without first getting
sanction from the authority. We respectfully submit that that should not be, and we have reason to believe that the Minister is inclined to agree with us.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It would be not only irritating to landlords but to tenants and would in a number of cases depreciate the value of property throughout the country if this particular paragraph were left in. May I associate myself with the Mover of the Amendment in thanking my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment?

9.46 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Paragraph 4 enables the authority to refuse consent for the conversion of any premises into a factory, workshop or place of public resort. That is something that might definitely add to the abuse, but the preceding paragraph is the reverse of it. We do not think it is necessary to retain the words of paragraph 3, which might prove a hardship. Therefore, we are prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

9.47 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Amendments to Clauses 14 and 19, standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Hore-Belisha.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 14.—(Power to acquire compulsorily for certain road purposes rights in connection with land belonging to local authorities and statutory undertakers.)

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 18, line 27, to leave out "or."
This is a drafting Amendment in order to prepare for the following Amendment. The Amendment is to meet the point that we accepted in a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). It is to give the same protection for widening and alteration of works of statutory undertakers for gas, water and electricity as is given in
regard to railway, dock and canal undertakings.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 27, after "harbour," insert "works, or apparatus."—[Captain, Hudson.]

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 19.—(Expenses.)

Captain HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, to leave oat "save as aforesaid."
This Amendment, which is followed by an Amendment in line 9, after "under" to insert "Section two of," is a little more complicated than the other. It is a drafting Amendment merely to carry out the original intention of the Bill, which was that under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1929, the county council should not be forced to contribute towards the expenses of the claiming authority under Section 2. They can contribute if they wish to do so by agreement, but it was never the intention of the Bill that they should be forced to do so. On the other hand, it is intended that should the claiming authority wish to exercise its powers under Clause 13, which is the compulsory purchase Clause for the improvement of a claimed county road, then the county council should be forced to contribute towards the expenses. If we do not make these Amendments the claiming authority would be unable to use that section of the Bill. With these Amendments we are making the position clear.

9.53 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: I understand that the proposal is now to make the county councils liable to make contributions under the compulsory purchase Clause. In the Bill I think the words are that the local authority must consult with the county council. Is this one of the occasions where after consultation only the county council may be made liable? I wished to put in words that they should have the consent of the county authority. I do not think that the county council should be liable for anything for which they have not given their formal consent but have only been consulted.

9.54 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: This is a question of improvements. In regard to the
improvement of a claimed county road the county council are bound to contribute towards the expenses. If there is a dispute between the claiming authority and the county council as to the proportion of the expenses, there is a provision in Section 33 for the proportion to be decided by the Minister. The county council have to contribute a proportion but they have not to defray the whole cost which is what they would have to do if it was a question of the repair of a road.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 9, after "under" insert "section two of".—[Captain Hudson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended on recommittal, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.46 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The House can congratulate itself on having reached the final stage of the Bill. It is a Bill for which all parties in the House clamoured. It is a lesson to those who occupy ministerial office to recall that when a Bill is asked for by everybody it is a Measure which everybody will desire to amend when it actually appears. Accordingly one found in Committee that its greeting was not as unanimous as one would originally have been led to expect by the pressure which was put upon us from all quarters. While it was not unanimously greeted the atmosphere was, I think, one of good will, and the result has been that suggestions from all quarters have been accepted and have made a decided improvement in the Measure as it was introduced. I will try to recall briefly some of the changes which have occurred. Originally there was no lapse of time between the passing of a resolution and ministerial approval of the resolution laying down the standard width. An opportunity has now been given for an intervening period, during which objections may be lodged by those who are interested. That was a wise concession for the Government to make.
Further, on the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester
(Captain Waterhouse) a register of those having an estate or interest in land on the side of the road has now to be kept by the highway authority, and every one likely to be affected by the restrictions may, if he desires, receive notice. That is a further improvement on the Bill. While originally the Minister was empowered to ask Parliament for widths in excess of 160 feet, that power has been taken from the Bill, as it is thought that 160 feet is about the widest road a modern community can desire, but at the behest of the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut. Colonel Acland-Troyte) a special provision has been made for increasing the widest standard width when an embankment or cutting makes such a precaution necessary.
There is an appeal now in regard to agricultural access under Clause 1, which was not originally in the Bill. I fear that my desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members and grant such an appeal was the cause of the subsequent constitutional discussion in which we were involved, for in adding an amendment to give an appeal on agricultural access, and having been thanked by hon. Members, it was subsequently discovered that what they desired was an appeal not to the Minister but to petty sessions and quarter sessions. I think that the Government have showed the House that it was anxious to meet them in essentials. There is now to be a local public inquiry, a summary of the facts and a reasoned decision by the Minister. The Government felt compelled to regard the working out of the Bill in practice as an administrative matter, and that the highway authorities and the Minister, who were entrusted to make a success of it, should be allowed to determine where access should occur upon a road and where building. The House has sustained us in that point of view by a large majority, partly because of the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Fyfe), who in a most persuasive maiden speech laid before the House the results of his actual experience in practising before the courts. I am sure the House was glad that he chose this occasion to intervene upon a subject with which in the course of his professional career he is familiar.
While the House sustained us in keeping the appeal in the hands of the
Minister, the Government are not unconscious of the very strong feeling entertained by hon. Members upon this subject. Anyone who listened to the discussions and contrasted them with what is happening in other countries must have been proud of the strong regard for democratic institutions which obtains here. At least I have that feeling myself, and it is worthy of preservation. We were not proposing to tax the subject or put him in gaol on a Ministerial decree; we were merely deciding that the Minister should be able, as the responsible authority, to determine when consent to access or building should be granted. The fact that the Amendment has been inserted requiring the Minister to hold a public inquiry and to give reasons for his decision should give some satisfaction at any rate to my hon. Friends who moved the Amendment, and should be a valuable precedent for other Measures. I think the House ought to bear in mind, in this question, not the emotional aspect of bureaucracy, but the clear division between what is properly judicial and what is properly administrative, for the day would indeed be an unfair one to Ministers if those who are called upon to carry Acts of Parliament into effect were not given the necessary powers to do what Parliament expected of them.
We have made changes in Clause 13 affecting the compulsory purchase of land for 220 yards on either side of a road. This was a Clause upon which there was strong feeling. It was thought to be injudicious to enable a highway authority to acquire land by compulsion in order to protect amenities which they might later be so obscurantist as themselves to destroy. As the Clause stands a highway authority may purchase land with the approval of the Minister for preserving the view from the road, but may not alienate that land without coming back to Parliament. The Clause in its final form will have given satisfaction to the whole House.
Upon compensation we made an adjustment which enables a person claiming compensation in respect of a piece of land which is restricted, to compel the arbitrator to have regard to the effect of the restriction on the whole of his adjoining estate. This made the compensation Clause wider, but did not exceed our original intention when we were drafting the Bill. We were able to im-
prove the wording of it, making it clear that the whole of the estate and not only the restricted part should be brought under review, and for that we are largely indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). We accepted an Amendment at the instance of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) on that important Clause of the Bill which enables a local authority to require anybody extending a building or erecting a building to provide means of ingress and egress for setting down or taking up passengers and goods. The Amendment we accepted from him was to make it clear that the Clause would only apply to new buildings, and we accepted a further Amendment from him to make it possible for the builder to provide a garage instead of a drive-in as originally proposed. We are grateful to him for those suggestions upon a subject with which he is familiar.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who was the most persistent but not the least constructive of the critics of this Measure, harassed us in our progress through the Bill until he had made sure that "building" did not include fences, gates, scarecrows, marquee tents, in which he was accustomed to address his constituents, and other structures and erections. It was very difficult to obtain a definition of "building" that satisfactorily fulfilled the purpose we had in view, but owing to the assistance of my hon. Friend a definition was in the end devised and inserted in the Bill. We also accepted an Amendment to make the mining position clear, and to make it plain that an excavation did not include workings which did not pierce the surface of the land. Private gardens were allowed to enjoy their amenities, and fences and gates that might be erected were not considered buildings or ipso facto means of access.
These are the main matters in which the Bill was altered by the Committee, and I think that when I narrate them to the House hon. Members will appreciate that the Committee in its 11½ sittings and in the course of the consideration of its 580 Amendments did not weaken but strengthened the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were inclined to reproach me for the concessiveness which I showed on behalf of the Government. I have con
ceded nothing which in my judgment is not an improvement of the Bill. I was ready to listen to arguments from all quarters of the House and to accept suggestions regardless whence they came. I am also a realist, and I know that it is better to be reasonable if you wish to get a Measure through than to be needlessly obstinate. At any rate I tried to have regard to the realities of the situation, and as the result we not only got the Bill through Committee but had it made better in the process.
Having referred to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should like to say candidly and genuinely that although they were in opposition to the Bill it must be recognised that they did nothing to obstruct its passage. On the contrary, they made it possible for us to get the Bill before the Parliamentary Recess, and for that I express my genuine acknowledgment, as I do also for the contribution they made in their brief speeches, which were the only speeches they permitted themselves to make, owing to consideration of the necessity of passing the Measure.
The House will not object to my adding a word of appreciation to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who was a member of the Committee, and his colleagues, who took up a most reasonable and helpful attitude, and who also did not delay the proceedings by unnecessary speeches but, when they did speak, had a sound point of view to contribute to the discussion. These observations will be my concluding words. It now will rest with the highway authorities and with the Ministry of Transport to improve our roadside development in a manner which will not only preserve amenities but will save many lives. The objects which we have in view are common. The responsibilities rest particularly upon the highway authorities. I hope they will appreciate that and administer this Measure as effectively as Parliament would have desired. In thanking the House for the manner in which it has made this Measure what it has now become, I beg to move the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: While appreciating the very kind words of the Minister, I
think every party in the House desired, when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, to do everything to get it passed during this Session. We had heard constant complaints from all parties about the extension of what is now known as ribbon building. It was to obviate the possibility of a further extension of such building that the House was desirous that the Bill should get through at the earliest possible moment. At the same time I doubt if many realise that instead of being a Bill for the prevention of ribbon development, it is going a little in the other direction. Although the description "ribbon development" may appeal to the imagination of some people, it is clear that ribbon development, or ribbon building, is something that wants tackling in a more drastic manner than has been done in the Bill. The Minister said that we called his attention to the fact that he was being too generous in his concessions.
The right hon. Gentleman's contention has been on several occasions that he did not accept any Amendment unless it was, in his judgment, improving the Bill. I should like to call his attention to one particular part of the Bill. I think it is the present Clause 14. It is the Clause which the Minister introduced as a new Clause and which aroused opposition at the last meeting of the Committee. When we arrived at the Clause, there were something like 30 Amendments standing against it. The Minister said he thought that a short explanation would save time. He made his short statement, and I am going to make a short statement now. The Minister said that the night previously he had been speaking to one of the people who had the Amendments on the Paper, and he thought that he could see his way clear to accepting the Amendments. When I state that that particular Member of the Committee had no fewer than 20 Amendments down against one Clause, and all were accepted, I think the House will agree that the Minister was rather generous.
I have in the whole of my Parliamentary life known nothing like it. A Minister brings in a new Clause to which there are 30 Amendments, and in order to satisfy or pacify the people he had a talk with them the night before and then agrees to accept the Amendments en bloc. That means either very bad drafting or unusual leniency on the part of the
Minister. I do not wish to put it any higher than that, and it is the Minister's own remark on the subject which has drawn that comment from me. I think he has been too lenient to certain interests during the passage of this Bill through its various stages, and that he has not made it possible for the highway authorities to take full advantage of the Measure as it stands. The Bill is supposed to enable the highway authorities to acquire land for the construction and improvement of roads, but I ask the Minister whether he thinks that highway authorities will be able to purchase the land necessary, in view of the shortage of capital and the price which they will have to pay for the land. The Minister may reply that this will be a kind of deferred payment system and that the local authorities will not feel it because it will not be in bulk, but the land will be increasing in value all the time, and the highway authorities will have to pay the increased value.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to purchase or compensation?

Mr. PARKINSON: Of course the land will have to be purchased—

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is at once?

Mr. PARKINSON: Great expense will be imposed on the highway authorities in connection with this matter both in purchase and compensation, and I submit that that will prevent them taking full advantage of any opportunities which are afforded by the Bill. There is another suggestion which the Minister did not accept and which we think he ought to have accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) put down an Amendment on this subject which was not called. The Bill refers to preserving amenities and controlling development in the neighbourhood of roads. The preservation of amenities is a sore point with those of us who come from the industrial areas. In those districts we find accumulations of all kinds along the sides of our roads and our railways. These eyesores are a constant and painful reminder of how industry has been operating at the expense of the amenities of the countryside. I appealed to the Minister in Committee to include in the Bill a provision which would prohibit these accumulations within a reasonable distance of the highway so as to prevent
interference with the amenities. The Minister expressed great sympathy but pointed out various difficulties and we got no further. We want to try by every means to preserve the amenities but I fear that the Bill is not going to do all that it set out to do in that respect. There are many eye-sores such as disused collieries, derelict brickworks, partially destroyed mills and old properties of various kinds which might have been dealt with in this Measure.
On the question of jurisdiction raised in Clause 7 and the appeal to the Minister, I am pleased that the decision reached in the Committee has been reversed, because if think it only right that the Minister should have the power which the Bill now confers upon him. It may not be generally known that there is a provision in Clause 14 of the Bill to the effect that nothing in that Clause is to authorise the compulsory acquisition of any right in, under or over any land for the purpose of the construction of a bridge under or over the Manchester Ship Canal. I think that is going too far. The Minister may tell me that a Private Bill can be promoted by a county council or any other authority desiring the right to place a bridge across the Ship Canal, but I think the same right ought to exist in regard to the Manchester Ship Canal as in regard to any other canal or railway line. We must have regard to the length of the canal from Liverpool to Manchester and the fact that it passes through a number of closely associated industrial areas where a tremendous lot of building is in progress. It may be necessary at any time to provide additional bridges and Private Bill legislation takes up a lot of time and costs a lot of money. I think there ought to be power to place bridges across the canal wherever necessary and to buy land for that purpose without Private Bill legislation.
As I say, this is termed a Bill for the restriction of ribbon development, and, while I do not think it will go far in that direction, I believe it will provide a certain amount of road planning. I fear, however, that the cost involved will be too high for the local authorities and in my opinion the Bill entrenches the landowner in his present position. The landowners will secure very high returns for their land, either by purchase or compensation. The cost will fall on the highway authorities and the highway
authorities will have to secure the money to meet these charges, not from any wealthy corporation, but from the poor people who have to pay rates. I sincerely hope that the Bill will develop in a wider sense than appears likely at the moment and that it will eventually justify its existence. We said at the beginning that while we criticised the Bill we did not intend to place any obstacle in its way to the Statute Book. We still take that view. We believe that it is a step in the right direction but a very short step.

10.14 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister on having secured the passage through this House of his first important Measure. He has had to get round some awkward corners, but he has now successfully parked this Measure, having nearly exceeded the speed limit in getting it through its various stages. I thank him for the compliment which he paid to me and I think the House will agree that the Committee which dealt with the Bill was very good tempered, largely bacause of the right hon. Gentleman's good temper. There was very little ill-feeling or bitterness and the Bill had a remarkably quick passage through Committee. The Committee sat afternoons and on one occasion four days a week. I think we may have had too great expectations from this Bill. It was introduced as a result of a great popular demand in the Press and in the House of Commons. The national conscience was aroused at what was going on through the length and breadth of the land, and at the depreciation of roads built at public expense, and as a result, at a very late stage in the Session, this Bill was introduced. Some of us would have liked it to take another form, but here it is, for better or for worse, and it will become an Act of Parliament, I hope, before we adjourn for the recess.
I think we are all agreed that time is of the essence of the Bill, that speed is essential. While we have been discussing it, the very evils that the Bill is designed to prevent have been almost daily taking place. I, like other hon. Members of the House, go along these arterial roads and see this terrible disfigurement of the landscape taking place, and the very fact that this Bill has been going through its
various stages has accelerated the development of land in this undesirable way. It is well to remember that the Bill is not mandatory but that the working of it depends on the discretion of the local authorities. Where you have a forward, sympathetic local authority, anxious to do its work in this direction, some of these evils will be met; on the other hand, where you have an apathetic local authority, indifferent and, I might add, perhaps without the necessary funds, very little good will be done. But the very publicity given to this problem of ribbon development will, I hope, arouse the national conscience and create a healthy public opinion to stimulate local authorities to do their job. Then we have to rely on the well known advertising qualities of the right hon. Gentleman to broadcast the need and the necessity for applying these powers by the local authorities.
I am glad these duties are not to be centralised. On the whole, I think the balance of advantages is in working through the machinery of local government, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot enforce, he can only persuade, and I hope he will do his best to put the machinery in operation and to persuade the local authorities to make full use of the very limited powers given to them by the Bill. The real question in many parts of the country will be the cost. There are many and onerous provisions for compensation in the Bill, especially in Clause 13, which will put undue burdens, I am afraid, on some parts of the country. I am not sure in this respect that the machinery is ideal. Under Clause 13 compulsion can be used for acquiring land required for road purposes, but when it comes to amenities, in the new Clause introduced by the right hon. Gentleman at the last moment, it depends on the good will of the landowner conceding by agreement the land required for amenities, and I am afraid that this will mean in many cases that it will be too expensive for the local authorities to be able to find the necessary money.
I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman has made any estimate of the probable cost of operating this Bill. I think it would not have been amiss if he had taken the House into his confidence in that respect. What burden is it to put
on the local authorities? The right hon. Gentleman must know pretty well the weak spots, those roads which it may be necessary to improve in order to prevent their desecration and worsening under this so-called ribbon development. His Department must have got some figures. I am afraid that that will be the stumbling block. In the meantime, we hope the local authorities will operate the Bill speedily and try to make its Clauses effective, because I believe they will have the nation behind them, and if it is found that they are prevented from carrying out this work because of the heavy cost involved, it will then be up to the Treasury or to the Minister of Transport through the Road Fund to come to their aid.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: As one who spoke the greatest number of words in the Committee upstairs, may I join in the congratulations to the Minister on his handling of this Bill? I do not know whose fault it was, but it was not creditable to the arrangement of business that the Committee should have been asked to consider so near to the end of the Session a Measure so important as this which contained so many controversial matters. The first Amendment that was moved was moved by me, and it was accepted by the Minister. It had the effect of extending Clause 1 to apply not merely to road safety, but to amenities. All those who were connected with me on the Committee did not agree with me about that. Nevertheless, I think the Bill was improved by the Minister accepting that Amendment. I first started to take an interest in this Bill in the Whitsuntide Recess, when I took it home and read it through twice. I came to the conclusion that in its original form it was very dangerous to the liberties of the people, and because of that I drafted a large number of Amendments to which my name was attached, and I co-operated with other Members in drafting further Amendments, to which in all cases my name was not attached.
As a result of our efforts, the Bill is to-day a very different Bill in detail—I do not say in the main principle—from the Bill as originally introduced. I do not think that it is to-day a challenge to the liberties of the people. I want to congratulate the Minister on having added a
new noun to the English language—"concessiveness"—which I hope will be added to the new edition of the Oxford Dictionary. I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman opposite has misread the Bill so seriously. He was very much afraid that, in connection with compulsory purchase, the fact that payments have not to be made at once would, owing to the fact that land was rising in value, add very much to the cost. So far as there is compulsory purchase under Clause 13, for road improvement purposes payment is made at once. I think that the hon. Gentleman was thinking of Clause 9, where, if consent is not granted and subsequently a person suffers, he can only claim compensation at the time when he can establish the fact that he has suffered an injury, and not at the time when consent is refused. Whether that is a good or a bad provision I do not know, but it will have the effect of relieving the local authority entirely from payment in those cases where restriction is imposed, but where it cannot be established that the restriction has immediately prevented development.
The hon. Gentleman opposite challenged the addition to Clause 14 which provides a safeguard to the Manchester Ship Canal. It happens that I moved that Amendment in the absence of one of my hon. Friends who could not be present and who had been asked to do it by the Manchester Ship Canal Company, the principal shareholder of which is not a private individual, but the City of Manchester Corporation. It seems obvious that in the case of the only ship canal in the serious sense in this country which is under the obligation to make sure that ships can go along it, no bridge ought to be proposed over the canal unless there is sufficient safeguard that the bridge will not be calculated to interfere with the traffic for which the canal was constructed. It seems elementary common sense that in a general Bill to restrict ribbon development we should not introduce something which is a challenge to that very remarkable undertaking in which the city of Manchester invested not only its hopes, but, as I well remember as a boy, because I was born near the Eastham Lock, almost its last penny to carry it to fruition. I cannot understand how anybody would wish to introduce an element of peril to that very remarkable and now, I am glad to say,
relatively prosperous engineering undertaking.
As one who has been rather a burden to the Minister during the last few weeks, I would like to thank him for his uniform good temper and courtesy, and not only him but the Parliamentary Secretary, the Solicitor-General, and also the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was having his baptism of fire, it being his first experience, I think, of taking part in the conduct of a controversial Bill. We were also very much helped by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle), who happened to be our Chairman; if I may say so, one of the very admirable chairmen evolved under the new system introduced this Session.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT: I gather that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not only pleased with himself, but is now pleased with the Bill, and I am almost tempted to be so discourteous as to say that that convinces me that the Bill is not a very good one from our point of view.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: You have not read it.

Mr. WILMOT: I think the hon. Member now adds direct rudeness to discourtesy, if I may say so. Since I sat on the Committee on this Bill throughout its consideration he might give me the credit of at least having read it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Did the hon. Member say he sat throughout?

Mr. WILMOT: I sat throughout.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Mr. WILMOT: I might also say that its sittings would not have been so numerous or so long if it had not been for the hon. Member, However, perhaps we may now get down to the substance of the Bill. The Minister was graceful enough to acknowledge the fact that we on this side of the House had done our utmost to facilitate the passage of the Bill into law, We did that not because we thought it was a good Bill, but because we hoped that it might at any rate do something, however little, to arrest an evil which is so obvious and so unpleasant and in fact, so dangerous
that any delay in doing something about it is to be deplored. Personally, I am disappointed in this Bill. It has been talked about for years, but the evil has gone on not only unchecked but accelerated by the preliminary talk and the unconscionable delay between the King's Speech and the introduction of the Bill, with the result that vast stretches of the countryside are now ruined for ever.
It is a very disappointing Bill, and those of us who are proud and passionately attached to the countryside—as most Englishmen are—are very much disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity of really doing something to remedy that evil. The chief defect of the Bill is the absence of effectiveness. It has looked at this problem purely as a traffic problem. The problem has its traffic aspects, but it is not a traffic problem. The problem is the unregulated exploitation of the countryside for private profit. That is the real problem, and the traffic side of it is merely one of its many sides. This Bill does something to arrest the dangers which are caused on the highway by the access of houses or side roads to arterial roads, but it has not done anything to arrest ribbon development. All it has done is to push the ribbon slightly further back, to increase the space between the two ribbons. From the public amenity point of view nothing is gained by having a string of bungalows 100 yards back from the road. You simply have exactly the same situation as existed before the Bill was thought of, except that you have reduced the dangers of unlimited access to the highway. So far as disfiguration of the countryside is concerned, the Bill does nothing.
We do not claim any monopoly of feelings of loathing and distress when we see those things taking place, and men of every party must be bitterly disappointed that the Government have missed the opportunity. On the main highway the Bill merely pushes the ribbon farther back. It does something less; we are worse off than if it had never been introduced. It does not apply to unclassified roads. Therefore the ribbon development speculator will be driven off the main highway, to an extent, to carry out his nefarious operations on the side roads and lanes of our beautiful countryside. We can see that happening to-day within
30 miles of this House. Country lanes are being "developed," as it is called, in this way.
The feeling that the Bill is entirely inadequate is general among people who are interested in this matter. The "Times" newspaper summarised this point of view when it was talking about the Bill so far away as 11th April this year. It said that it could no longer be thought, as might have been done some time before, that the solution would be found in conferring upon all the highway authorities powers such as had been secured by several of them by means of special Acts, for instance by the Surrey County Council. The "Times" went on to say:
The first requirement of an effective Measure must surely be that it should cover all roads,
except those that are used as private roads and on private estates. That is a most essential point. But the Bill does not apply its restrictions to all roads. It leaves the matter to the local authorities, at their own expense and by special resolution, to apply the provisions of Clause 2 to all the roads except the classified roads. It is obvious that the poorer and less progressive local authorities and, unfortunately, those, and there are many of them, which are dominated by building interests—it is quite common for the local jerry-builder to become a member of the local authority—will not move a finger to operate the Bill. We shall be worse off than before, for not only have we the jerry-builder building on our main highways, but we have now forced him to the side roads which are not covered by the Bill.
There is one other point. Clause 3 exempts works already in progress. I regard this as the most dangerous Clause of all. By that Clause any work which is in progress is exempted from the provisions of the Measure. In so far as unclassified roads are concerned, work is regarded as in progress until the approval of the Minister is given to the special resolution of the local authority applying the Act to this or that unclassified road. It means that if the jerry-builder gets busy now and runs down his foundations, or what passes for foundations in these erections, along a strip of land to-morrow morning—he can cover vast areas in that way—that is
work in progress, and at no time will it be possible under the Bill to stop that line of houses from being completed. You have, in fact, put a premium upon ribbon development; you are asking for an acceleration of the evil; for not only have you now confined him to the byroads, but you have told him, "Hurry up and get on with it; make sure you get something done before the local authority passes a resolution applying the Act to that particular road." Clause 3 says to him, "If you will only he as quick as possible, and cover as much of the country as you can in the time, we will see to it that, when the authority does act, its action is restricted so that it cannot interfere with anything which you have done." It would have been reasonable, fair and just for this Clause to have been so drawn as to require the builder of works in progress to show that they were bonâ fide works in progress, and not attempts to evade the spirit of the Act by putting down a track of foundations in order to get the protection of the saving Clause.
The general criticism of the Bill is that it does not do what one would infer from its Title. It does not prevent ribbon development; it does not restrict ribbon development; it merely removes the highway danger which ribbon development has caused, and it leaves absolutely untouched the main evil which gave rise to the demand for the Bill. I am not only disappointed, but am sincerely surprised, that a Government which is a Conservative Government, which professes to have some regard for the conservation of the beauties of this country, a Government which, however unjustified it may be in doing so, calls itself a National Government and which has the present Prime Minister at its head—for no one has expressed in more effective terms what we all feel about the English countryside—should have so mishandled this question. One can only be forced regretfully to the conclusion that the Government, when they came to grips with this problem, were more concerned to safeguard the rights of private property, the rights, that is to say, of private persons to make a profit out of the spoliation of what is really the birthright of the community, than they were to take effective measures to stop the development and growth of this evil. It is particularly surprising
that the Prime Minister should have lent himself to this thing. I have to thank him, not only for many fine speeches on the subject, but for the introduction to the works of Mary Webb, from which I have gathered much joy and appreciation of his particular part of the country. Time is running against us on this question. Those who know the South Downs, the Cotswold Hills, or any other unspoiled tract of England, know very well that this rash is creeping over it, and every week sees it intensified and developed still further. I am convinced, as everyone is who has studied the Bill and its effects, that the effect on the real rural beauties of England will be to accentuate rather than to remove the evil.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: I hope I may be permitted, as one closely associated with the Minister, and as a Liberal supporter of the Government, to join in the congratulations on the manner in which he has conducted the Bill through the Committee and the House. In Committee he has been yielding when yielding would not endanger the Bill and he has been stubborn when failure to resist would damage it. I feel that it is somewhat ungracious that hon. Members opposite have not congratulated him also, for so often has he been inclined to resist the views of those who normally support him in order to accept the point of view that has been taken by hon. Members opposite. I feel, if I may use two new nouns, one coined by the Minister himself and the other by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), that the right hon. Gentleman's "concessiveness" has not resulted in the "worsenment" of the Bill.
I want to refer to Clauses 16 and 17. I feel that the House ought to appreciate that these Clauses will probably result in the traffic congestion in large cities being substantially eased. They have little to do with ribbon development but they have a lot to do with traffic. I should like particularly to thank the Minister for the manner in which he has dealt with Clause 17. It was represented to him that, as originally drafted, it would probably be difficult to work, and those who would be charged with the task of making it work pointed out to him that, if certain alterations were made, it
would be easier for them. They did not wish in the least to diminish the effect of the Clauses but they proposed certain alterations which, if accepted, would in their opinion result in traffic congestion in large cities being very substantially eased. I am glad to say that the Minister has accepted those suggestions and now Clause 17 is in such a form that in large cities the effect that he desires will in my view be substantially achieved.
I should like to refer again to the somewhat ungracious speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). He objects, for some obscure reason, to people living along the side of country lanes. I pointed out in Committee that I could conceive no better place to live in than a country lane. He apparently desires that the proletariat, for whom he affects so speak, should be perpetually confined to the slums of the large cities. I think he ought to reconsider his views on that topic. The Bill will be a far better one than he has suggested and we part with it with pleasure and with congratulations to the Minister and to his Parliamentary Secretary.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). I think I have heard it before in Committee, and it appears to me to be the only speech that he can make on this Bill. He chided the Minister. He said he was at the Committee's sittings throughout.

Mr. WILMOT: No. I did not say that.

Mr. LEVY: I am in the recollection of the House. The hon. Member definitely said that he was at the Committee meetings throughout their sittings.

Mr. WILMOT: I said I was a Member of the Committee.

Mr. LEVY: The Committee sat on nine days. The hon. Member was there for only four. There were 15 divisions.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about that in the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: That is perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member is criticising the Bill and what took place with regard to it. As one who was there all the time, may I say that my right hon. Friend listened with very great courtesy
to all the Amendments that were tabled? He met the objections with the utmost fairness. The Bill which has now emerged from that Committeee on to the Floor of the House is a good Bill, of which my right hon. Friend will have cause to be proud in the future. I want to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said with regard to the courtesy not only of my right hon. Friend, but of all Members of the Front Bench who were associated with him, and to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) who acted with grace and courtesy towards Members of the Committee as Chairman. I am sure that when this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book all those who took part in the discussions will feel that they will have added to the legislation of this country something worthy of the National Government.

10.47 p.m.

Sir J. LAMB: The Minister has received a considerable amount of congratulation, and if I do not add to that congratulation I know that he will appreciate that it is not because I do not wish to do so, but because I do not wish to take up the time of the House. There is one point, which, though not in the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to mention. It is because it is not in the Bill that I wish to say that I think that the Bill is not as good as it really ought to have been.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with that matter on the Third Reading.

Sir J. LAMB: May I put it in this way? In Committee I raised a point which was embodied in an Amendment which was not called.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to raise the point.

Sir J. LAMB: Am I entitled, on a point of Order, to raise a point which the Minister said he would consider before the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not now.

Sir J. LAMB: I am afraid that I shall be out of order in what I wish to say.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: As one who perhaps put more Amendments down in respect of the Bill on the Committee stage than any other Member except certainly my hon. Friend the Member for South
Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), it would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they have dealt with the Bill on Committee and since. They have both been extremely amenable. They have given every consideration to the various Amendments we put down, instead of trying in any way to ride roughshod over us. Whatever we have brought forward they have always given, as is described in the Bill, a complete right of access. There has been provided by the efforts of my right hon. Friend a pastime for our juvenile population in respect of the red and green lights in the streets. I believe that what happens is that several boys and girls go to where the lights are and jump on the ribbon thing in order that the red lights may go on and prevent the traffic from passing. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise that those of us who put down numbers of Amendments to the Bill were not actuated by the same ideas or motives as those children.
We really had very serious misgivings as to the effect of the Bill upon the small man as well as upon the large landowner and the undertakers of the big public utility companies in the country. I think that my right hon. Friend has met most of the Amendments put down to the Bill. He certainly met what I have considered the gravest objection from the very beginning, and that was the right of local authorities under what was Clause 10 and is now Clause 13 to buy compulsorily land up to 220 yards each side of the road. That, if it had not been modified, would have been a very wide and dangerous power, which might have been misused by local authorities. But the difficulty has been met, and I therefore hope that this Bill will do what we all hope it will, that is, to prevent accidents on the roads and also to stop this terrible ribbon development which is so defacing our countryside.

10.51 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: In the very few minutes in which I shall address the House I want to take up two points which were made by the Opposition, and also to acknowledge the bouquets which were presented to my right hon. Friend and myself. First of all, as regards what the Opposition said. They made a couple of rather gloomy speeches. The first point to which I would reply is that made by
the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) when he inferred that the Government in allowing the Bill to be amended to the form in which it is now were deliberately pandering to people who liked to build ribbon houses along the side of the road, which he called jerrybuilt and unsuitable houses. I think the House will realise that if the Government were trying to do anything of the kind it would not have brought in a Bill at all. It certainly did not bring in a Bill of this kind and take up the time of Parliament for any such motive as that.
The other point is that the Bill would merely drive ribbon building further back. I believe that the powers we have taken as regards access will be such that instead of houses being built parallel to the road beyond the 220 feet, realising that they cannot have access to all these houses, they will build at right angles and thereby we shall get the group development which we want to see and thus ribbon development will be avoided. As the Minister has said, the machinery of this Bill remains intact, but it has been improved by the House and improved in order to see that no injustice shall be done to any individual as a result of the Bill. We believe that this Bill as now drafted will be able to deal effectively with certain admitted evils. In moulding this Bill to its present form we have seen the work of the House of Commons at its best. As my right hon. Friend has said, we are extremely grateful for the help we have received from all sides of the House, and we now ask for the Third Reading to be given to us in order that we may bring the Bill's provisions into effect at the earliest possible moment.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Acts, 1911 and 1929, by making provision—

(1) with respect to the nature and period of service qualifying persons for the grant of pensions under section one of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Act, 1911;
(2) with respect to the meaning of the expression service in the permanent Civil Service of the State'; and
(3) for granting in certain circumstances to persons who, after serving as Governors within the meaning of the said Act, have served in the office of Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, pensions in respect of their service as such Governors and in respect of their employment (if any) in service in the permanent Civil Service of the State within the meaning of the said Acts as amended in pursuance of this Resolution;

and to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the sums required to defray such expenditure as may be occasioned by the said amendments.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, Mr. Duff Cooper and Lord Stanley.

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINION'S, ETC.) BILL.

"to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Acts, 1911 and 1929, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed." [Bill 128.]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.